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.

    • rab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Careful, I got called a nazi on here for saying that lol

      • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.

      • Cosmoooooooo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • remotelove@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          1 year 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year 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.

      • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

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