The world population grew by 75 million people over the past year and on New Year’s Day it will stand at more than 8 billion people, according to figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Thursday.

The worldwide growth rate in the past year was just under 1%. At the start of 2024, 4.3 births and two deaths are expected worldwide every second, according to the Census Bureau figures.

The growth rate for the United States in the past year was 0.53%, about half the worldwide figure. The U.S. added 1.7 million people and will have a population on New Year’s Day of 335.8 million people.

  • @Ejh3k
    link
    English
    3911 months ago

    People. Pull out. Always.

    • @TK420
      link
      811 months ago

      Got snipped, I never pull out 🙂

        • @TheDeepState
          link
          -711 months ago

          Or WW3. One of the obstacles to universal basic income is too many people.

          • @DannyMac
            link
            English
            411 months ago

            Won’t be any UBI in a nuclear hell scape unless it means Unusable Biosphere Integrity.

          • @Fredselfish
            link
            111 months ago

            We get Star Trek universe if we have one of those but not sure any of us would get to enjoy that.

        • F_Haxhausen
          link
          511 months ago

          Yeah. There was a guy calling everyone a eugenicist for simply saying we need less people to help bring down climate change.

          He said that was just a ploy.

          I can’t wait to not exist, for many reasons. But people like that is at the top of my list.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            If you want the population to decline, then there has to be some kind of filter for who gets to live or reproduce. Even if it’s 100% random with no racial/religious/whatever bias involved, you must still remove a significant chunk of people, or at least cause them not to reproduce. That’s the best case scenario. Even trying it is almost asking for someone to co-opt it for their fascist goals; it almost certainly won’t be 100% random, and bias towards specific populations will occur. It almost certainly will devolve into eugenics.

            The Earth can support this many people. We know how. What it can’t do is support it with utility monster billionaires around.

          • HACKthePRISONS
            link
            fedilink
            -211 months ago

            >There was a guy calling everyone a eugenicist for simply saying we need less people to help bring down climate change.

            yea. that’s ecofascist rhetoric. of course they told you what you’re doing.

            • F_Haxhausen
              link
              111 months ago

              It’s fascist only if people don’t choose on their own, making the choice, entirely their free choice.

              • HACKthePRISONS
                link
                fedilink
                -111 months ago

                you don’t seem to understand that you’re just saying the same thing ecofascists say, then rationalizing it by saying “it’s only propaganda. i’m not forcing anyone to do anything”

        • Cosmoooooooo
          link
          2611 months ago

          All the most habitable spots are already taken. The only spots left have major disadvantages.

          You can’t just ‘spread out’ all the people. It doesn’t work that way. Not everyone wants to live on a cliffside road in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, or wherever. Nor is it advantageous in any way to do so.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -1511 months ago

            Nor is it advantageous in any way to do so.

            Bullshit. Who else would want to go to such a place? Weird living conditions just take a bit of time to get used to and nobody is going to bother you.

        • @bitwaba
          link
          911 months ago

          All the efficiencies for transportation and infrastructure are possible because of big cities. One of the biggest contributors to us getting climate change under control will be our ability to leverage the most amount of green energy policies for the least amount of resources.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          411 months ago

          Which would require far more energy to support. Concentration means easier logistics, less transportation, and less overall resources required

    • @CompostMaterial
      link
      English
      411 months ago

      To put in perspective, the population in 1980 was about 4.5bln. So we could erase almost half the global population and still have a workforce like 1980. 8 BILLION is way more than ever needed to exist (at the same time).

  • Kokesh
    link
    English
    2011 months ago

    I hope the birth rate declines. Too many people fucking up everything.

    • @werefreeatlast
      link
      211 months ago

      Guns is the solution! They trim the upper middle class. You know, keep some scraps for the rest of the middle class. Is that how it works? Because I recall as a poor kid that there was no need to lock the door…what someone wants to steal your shoes?

  • @TenderfootGungi
    link
    411 months ago

    Leading economies all have low birth rates. I believe the US is still below our replacement rate without immigration. Where are populations growing fast? This article does not say. My guess is low cost of living areas like third world counties?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      311 months ago

      In “3rd world” African countries, kids are still often used for labor so it’s beneficial for families to have more children. I believe India has taken over China’s place as the most populated area. There are also countries like Aghanistan, with rulers who have banned birthcontrol - although given the exodus when the U.S. bailed, I don’t know where they stand growth-wise rn