Talk:World population

Giant number

The article is "World Population". Nowhere near the top of the article does it even say what the current world population is estimated to be. There should, ideally, be a single giant ticking number at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.73.113 (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article is It was estimated by the United Nations to have exceeded eight billion in mid-November 2022. Belbury (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Such a ticker would be misleading because a figure this accurate cannot be given; the available accuracy is nowhere even close. As the article itself says: It is difficult for estimates to be better than rough approximations, as even current population estimates are fraught with uncertainties from 3% to 5%. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Billion(s) more?

This edit was pporly formatted, but we probably need to address this: Recent reports covered in several media say that research indicates the rural populations may be grossly underestimated, so that the total population is underestimated by more than a billion (and perhaps has been so for more than a decade). I guess we need a better source; perhaps . Nø (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I think a better, more balanced source is . However, it seems all the recent reporting about it is linked to a single study in Nature Communications, so it seems a bit WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Unless other studies support the conclusions, I would leave it out. Vpab15 (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Urban populations would be more underestimated, like Kinshasa. Orangeorang1 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the section at the end?

It feels a bit like a rant about a pet project. It is not placed in the context of exploring possible causes of growth, it is just plopped on to the end. I feel like it should be removed or integrated into the rest of the article. Natoasto (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes and the sources are really bad. Orangeorang1 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The human population as a function of food availability section is pretty poor.

They say that there are many arguments against the theory but don't detail these arguments. Two of the people they cite for authority are supposedly far right and one is a "anarcho-primitivist" Orangeorang1 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The claim that prehistoric people were "always" on the verge of extinction.

This is silly humans have been around roughly two million years, the majority of the food they ate was not meat. They did rely on meat. Orangeorang1 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If they were on the verge of extinction for two million years they would be extinct. When you say verge of extinction you mean animals like black rhinoceroses. Orangeorang1 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

How are the reason they domesticated sheep unknown?

It's not hard to figure out what sheep were used for it doesn't need to be a mystery. Orangeorang1 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hourglass Graphic

I worry that the hourglass graphic will mislead people on the relative scales of the alive and dead population, because people will intuitively picture a 3D hourglass, see the bottom sandpile is scaled by 2x compared to the top, and they'll intuitively estimate about 8x as much sand. But this was only designed as 2D, like 2x scaling it will only multiply the grains of sand by 4x. ~2026-27968-68 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)