Who'll be living where in 25-years?
July 21, 2006 10:34 PM   Subscribe

Who'll be living where. Researchers at the Earth Institute at Columbia University have developed map that projects where people will be living in the year 2025.
posted by stbalbach (36 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
The "map" link works OK.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 PM on July 21, 2006

Well, sure, some around here have no life besides MeFi.
posted by mischief at 10:54 PM on July 21, 2006

I opened five identical tabs clicking absently over and over on that link before I realized I'd been had...
posted by Aquaman at 11:04 PM on July 21, 2006

No, see. The idea is that we'll be living here. Get it?
posted by bob sarabia at 11:34 PM on July 21, 2006

Apparently Canada's new slogan is "Move to Alberta!"
posted by angerbot at 11:36 PM on July 21, 2006

Is this like a secret KFC commercial?
posted by IronLizard at 11:44 PM on July 21, 2006

posted by IronLizard at 11:44 PM on July 21, 2006

wtf, IronLizard?
posted by bob sarabia at 11:46 PM on July 21, 2006

The chicken head. There's a chicken head goddammit. on the map.
posted by IronLizard at 11:55 PM on July 21, 2006

Not only that, but they've made china resemble a moose head.
posted by IronLizard at 11:56 PM on July 21, 2006

oh ok. Chicken head. I see it now.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:09 AM on July 22, 2006

posted by ab3 at 12:14 AM on July 22, 2006

Defensive tonight, are we?
posted by IronLizard at 12:19 AM on July 22, 2006

Well the map doesn't show future human population distribution. Everyone knows we're due to die out in the next year or so. This map is future chicken population distribution. After all, they'll be the first ones to work out how to use the guns we left behind.

The map also conveniently shows the predicted location of their grand chicken head palace.
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 12:31 AM on July 22, 2006

Thus the maps shown here reconcile two very different
sets of data: a detailed map of population
distribution in the recent past by small grid cells,
and a population projection made for a future date
and for entire countries. The adjustment necessary
for each cell is more complicated than it might
seem, however. Given the diversity of population
change between 1990 and 1995, there’s no easy or
obvious way to bring all the grid cells smoothly to
the point where a nation’s population equals the
total that UN demographers project for 2025. The
PAI and Columbia University researchers elected
to use a technique known as share-of-growth for
most of the grids, calculating each grid’s share of
a nation’s population growth from 1990 to 1995.
The researchers then extrapolated these shares of
growth into the future as the national population
grew to its projected 2025 total.

Interesting maps. Thanks for the links. The methodology seems a little shaky however. Country level poulation is forecasted by the UN -- presumably using numerous years worth of data to get a reasonable estimate of future population. Sounds good.

But within each country, the methodology seems to be saying some strange things about migration. Namely, that if an area experienced growth over the five year period, you will experience similar growth over each five year period thru 2025 (assuming the nation is forecasted to grow overall). If an area was losing population, it's condemned to continue to lose poulation in all future 5 year time blocks thru 2025. Yikes! That's a big assumption based soley on two data points i.e. 1990 and 1995.
posted by bim at 12:40 AM on July 22, 2006

And clearly I can't spell (or type) the word population at this late hour!
posted by bim at 12:41 AM on July 22, 2006

I don't mind living here. It's kind of soothing.
posted by liquorice at 2:40 AM on July 22, 2006

The chicken head is where the Aral Sea should be.
posted by mdonley at 5:19 AM on July 22, 2006

Looks like a lot of eastern Europeans are gonna move to India.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:47 AM on July 22, 2006

Do you blame them, bashos_frog? A nice Chicken Tikka beats Kavarma any day.
posted by Jimbob at 6:01 AM on July 22, 2006

Actually, I kid. They're both kinda tasty. mmm.
posted by Jimbob at 6:02 AM on July 22, 2006

Who'll be living where?

Perhaps with your kids—from the UN Population Division, Population Ageing 2006 [PDF]:
The number of persons aged 60 years or over is estimated to be 688 million in 2006 and is projected to grow to almost 2 billion by 2050, at which time the population of older persons will be larger than the population of children (0-14 years) for the first time in human history. The majority of the world’s older persons reside in Asia (54 per cent), while Europe has the next largest share (22 per cent).
One out of every 9 persons is now aged 60 years or over; by 2050, the United Nations projects that 1 person out of every 5, and by 2150 1 out of every 3, will be aged 60 years or over.
Life expectancy at birth has increased about 20 years since 1950, to its current level of 66 years. Of those surviving to age 60, men can expect to live another 17 years and women an additional 21 years.
The majority of older persons are women. Because female life expectancy is greater than male life expectancy, among older persons there are 82 men per 100 women. Among the oldest old, there are only 55 men for every 100 women.
I vote that we replace all world leaders with grandmothers.
posted by cenoxo at 6:05 AM on July 22, 2006

Sorry about the first link. It's not that important just a brief journalism article (which I now can't find).

Yeah the surprise is how Eastern Europe is going to empty out.
posted by stbalbach at 6:09 AM on July 22, 2006

Not really such a surprise. They're following the jobs.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:14 AM on July 22, 2006

Who'll be living where? (correct FPP)
posted by stbalbach at 6:27 AM on July 22, 2006

I simply can't believe that the water-scarce, difficult to reach, underdeveloped, high-altitude Himalayas can support the kind of population boom/transfer that they're suggesting! It would seem that the people would be migrating from those regions, no t to them.
posted by DenOfSizer at 6:41 AM on July 22, 2006

[removed the blank first link]
posted by jessamyn at 7:54 AM on July 22, 2006

My guess - Underground due to a nuclear exchange that I thought would never happen after we managed to survive the Cold War but thanks to complete idiocy and immaturity on the part of many of the world's governments is more and more likely within the next twenty years.

*checks the bulletin of atomic scientists for the doomsday clock's current time*

Still 7 minutes - surprising that it's not been updated since Feb 2002 with what's been happening in the world these past few years.
posted by longbaugh at 8:11 AM on July 22, 2006

Bangladesh is a surprisingly popular destination. Especially as it's likely to be under water by then.
posted by rhymer at 9:49 AM on July 22, 2006

Waterworld. I feel my gills sprouting now.
posted by jfuller at 10:33 AM on July 22, 2006

the surprise is how Eastern Europe is going to empty out.
Not really: it's data from 1995-2025, and the early nineties was when the borders to western europe started to open causing all kinds of (non-sudden) movement of money and people, so this has probably been going on for a while, and might even already be over, but still causes there to be less people in eastern europe in 2025 compared to 1995.

I'm more confused by the exodus from Portugal. What's going on there?
posted by easternblot at 10:41 AM on July 22, 2006

Rising ocean levels will drown Portugal.
posted by nlindstrom at 10:48 AM on July 22, 2006

Is Australia really the least hospitable place on earth? Less people live there than in the sahara, it seems.
posted by empath at 11:45 AM on July 22, 2006

I'm more confused by the exodus from Portugal. What's going on there?

I've met lots of Portuguese working in Switzerland, Germany and France. Some of the same reasons eastern Europe is emptying out: jobs and much better pay.
posted by letitrain at 12:35 PM on July 22, 2006

empath: Really? Strange. There are twenty million of us out here after all.
posted by liquorice at 5:59 PM on July 22, 2006

It's not that Australia is unhospitable, it's just that we are a highly coastal-centric country, and we all like to stick to the one small area (well, to a few small areas). People can and do live further inland, but a lot of that is either desert or simply isolated. But with so much coastline for such a proportionally small population, why wouldn't you stick around it?
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 6:39 PM on July 22, 2006

« Older Nobody pays you to think.   |   Culture War Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments