Talk:2050

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• 3rd millennium
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:3rd millennium

== Untitled 2007 comment ==

The following two points are trends that take place over a long period of time, and 2050 seems to have been used as a rough guesstimate for the final stage of hte trend. Not only is the extinction of species speculation, but the date of extinction is even more speculative. Thus, I feel they should not be listed on this page, or at least not in the context of "events." Anyone agree or disagree?

"The Elephant, Polar Bear and many other species are predicted to be extinct in the wild by 2050. Glaciers will all but vanish from the Alps by 2050, according to scientists, as reported in the New York Times, January 22, 2007. "

Also, the following point sounds absolutely ridiculous, and nothing to substantiate it exists on the "Moon" page. Can anyone confirm or source it? If not, I'll remove it within a week.

"The Moon will all but vanish from the Earth's orbit by 2050, according to scientists, because of the lack of gravity. "

Thanks!! Blue Crest 08:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove that line. It's absurd, to think the moon will vanish from the Earth's orbit by 2050. Admittedly, I wasn't 100% sure, so I read the wiki page about the moon. There is nothing to corroborate that. As this line indicates: "Tidal effects result in an increase of the mean Earth-Moon distance of about 4 metres per century, or 4 centimetres per year", the distance seems to increase, but by 2050...2050-2007=43 -> 43*4=172. So, the moon will have moved 172 centimeters away from the Earth by 2050. I hardly think 172 centimeters constitutes 'vanishing'. :) Vince 13:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True or false: it is likely that by the year 2050, India will have more people than China. 66.245.12.170 22:41, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reference from a reliable source for that theory? -- Graham :) | Talk 22:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any editions of The World Almanac?? If so, what year?? Look for a section of population projections. The more up-to-date the book is, the more educated guess. 66.245.12.170 22:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

2050 is still an arbitrary year to choose for such a measure, unless a credible prediction suggests that India's population will overtake China's in exactly 2050. If it's not exactly 2050, then the fact (if it IS a fact--I've got no idea, personally) should be placed on the appropriate year's page, and/or a page about populations/population trends. Blue Crest 08:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-52 retired in 2050? I seriously doubt that. Why in god's name would anyone in their right mind keep the same airframe for one hundred years? The B-52 is already being replaced by the B-1B. As such, I have removed that claim.

B-52 Stratofortress agrees with the claim; [1] claims they intend to keep the B-52s going "beyond the year 2040". As such, I've reinstated it.

The Non Fiction is nothing bot doom and gloom, there is no questioning, Fatalism is and always has been Nationlism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.123.17 (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced predicted event.

There're no sources for most of the predicted event. I'm getting rid of most of them. Also, I removed the ones that refer to "by 2050" as well. Ichibani 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything from this useful: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26186087/ (America in 2050: Even older and more diverse) ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.125.163 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No population growth predictions?

Why has this been deleted? Certainly the article isn't getting too long, so it has to be something else. --bender235 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population-in-country predictions don't seem particularly notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the predicted number of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease in the United States is? Come on. BTW: Where's the rule that says "only global events are notable to Wikipedia"? --bender235 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Plus, if we mention the expected populations of two countries in one year, then why not mention the populations of all countries in all years? These articles are meant to document information that of some historical significance on an international level. The fact that an "article isn't getting too long" does not mean that discretion should not be used when adding information to it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the predicted number of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease in the US as notable, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about mentioning population predictions for each and every year. 2050 is an exception, as it is the middle of the century. Why not have population growth predictions in there? --bender235 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might continue this here. --bender235 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just for each and every year, but for each and every country. Plus, it's not clear why any country's population becomes particularly important in the middle of a century. 2050 may be a nice, even, pretty number, but that does not mean that any statistic generated in reference to that year is of any consequence whatsoever. Perhaps this stuff could go in 2050 in the United States and 2050 in Germany, but even so, statistics do not automatically acquire historical significance, even domestically, just because they're generated in reference to a pretty-looking year. However, if there is expected to be some sort of practical consequence of any country's having certain demographic features in a certain year, then that may be another story. But it is not too convincing to suggest, essentially, that the U.S. and Germany are interesting countries, and 2050 is an interesting-sounding year, and therefore any data connecting the U.S. or Germany to 2050 is therefore notable. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that mean—in consequence—that we would have to split basically every year page into pages like 2008 in Switzerland, 2008 in Brazil, 2008 in Honduras. Because if you take a look at 2008, there aren't only "global events", but things like "Cyprus and Malta adopt the euro." (which would have to be added to 2008 in Cyprus and 2008 in Malta, I guess) or "Rebels attack the capital of Chad, N'Djamena" (-> 2008 in Chad). Should we really do that? --bender235 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.html
- In 2000s energy crisis on 2011-05-25 07:03:41, 404 Not Found
- In 2000s energy crisis on 2011-06-10 06:22:27, 404 Not Found
- In 2050 on 2011-06-19 05:14:32, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!