World population is growing 20 million people every 3 months

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by daletournier

. . . Sort of like climate change, some very smart people say its happening and some very smart people say its not. . . .

Stated in a way that makes it seem like similar numbers of academics agree and disagree on this issue when actually the ratio is somewhere close to 32:1 agreeing that global warming is occurring.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

Then he knows how to read a logarithmic scale and knows it represents exponential curves. As such, growth rate may be slowing by some small amount in some locations, but it remains exponential nonetheless.

Logarithmic and exponential curves are 2 different things.

All but one of the curves on the graph are all flattening out which means it's logarithmic not exponential. The exception is Europe which is decreasing.

There's research going back to the 1960's predicting world population will peak some time between 2065 & 2100 with some outliers earlier or later.

[Wotname]

I seem to recall the most animal populations expand until they exhaust their food supply or their habitat is altered so much that they can no longer survive.

No reason to expect we (humans) are any different.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Logarithmic and exponential curves are 2 different things.

A simple math lesson for Adelie and the MENSA guys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-log_plot

A straight line on a semilog graph of y versus x represents an exponential function of the form
y = a e^( b x).

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Stated in a way that makes it seem like similar numbers of academics agree and disagree on this issue when actually the ratio is somewhere close to 32:1 agreeing that global warming is occurring.

Chill, im not starting a global warming debate, I dont have a side. Way to passionate debate for me to be involved in.

Sent from my vivo Y35 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I seem to recall the most animal populations expand until they exhaust their food supply or their habitat is altered so much that they can no longer survive.

No reason to expect we (humans) are any different.

This is where Zombies enter the picture

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I seem to recall the most animal populations expand until they exhaust their food supply or their habitat is altered so much that they can no longer survive.

No reason to expect we (humans) are any different.

In the good years the fox will breed twice however in bad years they cut down to once.. sadly you just have to go to India for example to see humans think that the more they breed the greater the chance their genes will survive and continue.
The natural world is smarter than us in many ways..
There is one thing we have in common with the fox.. the senseless killing frenzy when we get into the hen house.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

A simple math lesson for Adelie and the MENSA guys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-log_plot

A straight line on a semilog graph of y versus x represents an exponential function of the form
y = a e^( b x).

Yes, and there are no straight lines in your graph in Post #21.

Ergo, none of those curves are exponential.

Just to clarify, I've draw the matching straight lines for each of those curves. You will notice that every one of the curves is showing a declining growth rate (the mid point of the curve is above the straight line).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by StuM

1. Population growth is not exponential, the rate is decreasing. It is displaying all the attributes of logistic growth.

2. A major factor in population growth now is declining death rates, not the traditional bogeyman of high birth rates.

Indeed. And significant net population growth occurs only in populations at a particular, fairly narrowly defined state of development. Below that state, and people die too much. Above that state, and people don't have enough kids.

So significant worldwide net population growth is a short-term phenomenon unless a large part of the world gets stuck in the stage of development India is in now. China is already well out of it and has jumped directly to first world demographic problems (the stupid one child policy accelerated the development of that problem). If India and a few big countries in Africa and South America will get to the stage China has reached just in the last 10 years, then we will start having a declining world population and a whole different set of demographic problems.

And with or without that, the developed countries already have a big problem with demographics, with not enough young people to pay the taxes to support growing numbers of old people living longer and longer. And not enough people to do the work needed. The gap is currently being filled with immigration, but what happens when those countries start needing their own productive young people? Big trouble, that's what. We will have to have a big increase in the rate of productivity growth to fill the gap.

The world has some pretty big demographic challenges, but overpopulation is not one of them.

As to "consumerism" -- there's not really any growth in the consumption of stuff, in developed countries. What people consume as they get richer and richer is rather experience, like travel. Why we cruisers are the perfect examples of this. So it's not the "powers that be" and "vested economic interests" which need economic growth -- it's us, who want to work less and have richer experiences, more time to play and explore and more means to do so. We cruisers are not the only ones who want that -- it's a basic human drive.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. And significant net population growth occurs only in populations at a particular, fairly narrowly defined state of development. Below that state, and people die too much. Above that state, and people don't have enough kids.
...

A cogent argument as usual DH!

[boatman61]

I don't know about no increase in consumerism.. every year folks race to buy the latest model car for the status of the number plate, folks go through maybe 3 new phones a year as the latest gimmick pops up.. I know folks who change their kitchen every year..
Not because they need these things but because they can.
Lets face it.. everything's geared to forcing us into buying new stuff.. personally I'm happy with my notebook but following my involuntary conversion from Windows 8 to 10 I now find my expensive (at the time) Canon IP90 portable printer is incompatible with Windows 10 which will not accept the updates so only every other line gets printed.
Fortunately I've an old 15" XP laptop that I can use.. after loading what I want printed onto a 'stick'.. but its serves as an example of how things are.
Everything is geared to make us more and more helpless/reliant with the increased use of technology designed to exclude self sufficiency.
Saw a nice fight back coming out of Holland where they've developed a mobile phone you can upgrade yourself.. camera, the whole caboodle.. same case just buy the cheap components open the phone and click the new bits in place.. Nokia/Samsung not happy..

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boatman61

In the good years the fox will breed twice however in bad years they cut down to once.. sadly you just have to go to India for example to see humans think that the more they breed the greater the chance their genes will survive and continue.
The natural world is smarter than us in many ways..
There is one thing we have in common with the fox.. the senseless killing frenzy when we get into the hen house.

Actually, the statistics show humans doing the exact opposite. The wealthiest countries (ie: those having good years) tend to have the lowest population growth. The poorest countries (ie: those having bad years) tend to have the highest population growth.

In the modern world, there is a major disconnect between evolution and breeding success but it's really only in the last 100-200yrs or so that large families have become more burden than help (economically), so there really hasn't been time for evolution to adapt.
- Historically, you needed extra hands to help with labor intensive farming and family could be had for the cost of some food and shelter. Even at 5 or 6, kids might start doing some simple tasks. Hired help wanted enough that they could cover that plus a profit for their efforts.
- In modern times, it's not uncommon for kids to not produce until their late teens...in recent years it seems to be moving toward late 20's, so having a gaggle of kids is financially a huge burden.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. The growth rate is slowing down even in the poor high growth countries. Fewer and fewer practice labor intensive farming techniques, as they do so, they are moving towards smaller families but it takes time. India is roughly where Britain was during the industrial revolution with large families moving to cities to find jobs. It's a challenging time for them. I do expect we will see them (and similar countries) go thru this change faster than the earlier members as they can see the financial benefits of smaller families (plus they get inundated with our media showing them rich people with small families). But it still will take time.

My biggest concern in terms of population is what happens in another 10yrs when China's One Child policy comes to it's conclusion and their working age population craters as a percentage of their overall population. What will they do in desperation....

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Actually, the statistics show humans doing the exact opposite. The wealthiest countries (ie: those having good years) tend to have the lowest population growth. The poorest countries (ie: those having bad years) tend to have the highest population growth.

In bad years, people starve in the poorest country, or are killed in civil wars etc., and population declines. Population growth occurs when there is enough food -- that is, when "poor" countries are "rich" according to the their own standards. That's why population didn't increase much in the Middle Ages, and didn't increase much in say Africa in the 18th - 19th centuries.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

My biggest concern in terms of population is what happens in another 10yrs when China's One Child policy comes to it's conclusion and their working age population craters as a percentage of their overall population. What will they do in desperation....

China is screwed, because you can't make people have more children. China is no longer an undeveloped country and people there already want to work and make money and enjoy life, not have lots of kids. The one child policy is already gone now, and there has not been any spike in the birth rate. Japan has already been through this hell, but it's nothing compared to what China will have, and China will not have the resources that Japan had, to deal with it.

There will be immense pressure for productivity growth in China, and voracious demand for labor might set off a worldwide labor shortage, with bounties paid for immigrants. The pressure for productivity growth might accelerate technological progress. Will be interesting times. Could choke off growth in China, or accelerate it -- who knows. One thing is sure -- what happens in China over the next decades will set the tone for what is happening in the whole rest of the world, just like what was happening in the U.S. did a century ago.

[brownoarsman]

I don't think a population 'unit' will matter so much in the years ahead. With machines replacing people, or greatly enhancing their productivity, production could easily be divorced from population. This is more likely in the West with higher wages already.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by boatman61
In the good years the fox will breed twice however in bad years they cut down to once.. sadly you just have to go to India for example to see humans think that the more they breed the greater the chance their genes will survive and continue.
The natural world is smarter than us in many ways..
There is one thing we have in common with the fox.. the senseless killing frenzy when we get into the hen house.


Valhalla[quote]
Actually, the statistics show humans doing the exact opposite. The wealthiest countries (ie: those having good years) tend to have the lowest population growth. The poorest countries (ie: those having bad years) tend to have the highest population growth.[quote]

I think that's what I said..