3 ms·
The population growth rate isn't dependant on the base population. You can pretend it is by expressing it as a percentage, but that doesn't make it so. Look at
by nevdka 9y ago
The population growth rate isn't dependant on the base population. You can pretend it is by expressing it as a percentage, but that doesn't make it so.
Look at [0]. 2016 had a higher population than 2015, yet the growth was smaller. Not just a smaller percentage, but actually smaller by about half a million people. If growth was exponential, then the higher population would have a larger increase, but it doesn't, and so the growth isn't exponential.
[0]: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populati...
- ljw1001 9y agoSigh. The growth _rate_ is not dependent on the population, but the actual numeric growth _amount_ is. It is the _population_ that is growing exponentially. You are describing the shift from a steep exponential growth curve to a lower exponential growth curve that I mentioned earlier. If you get 10% compounded interest on your money it grows exponentially at 10%. If you get 9% compounded interest it grows exponentially at 9%. And if you _were_ getting 10% and the bank changes the rate to 9% your money is now growing exponentially at 9% interest, assuming only that the interest is reinvested.
- sobani 9y agoAssume my bank gives me a linear interest of $10 per year. Then going from $100 to $110 that would be 10%. Going from $110 to $120 would be ~9%. Going from $120 to $130 would be ~8%. In any year you could conclude my savings grow exponentially. 10%! 9%! whoohoo! But if you look over a longer time frame, it clearly isn't. And as nevdka mentioned, the population growth is less than linear. If my bank gave me $10 of interest last year and $9 this year, and $8 the next, there is definitely no exponential growth.