4 ms·

Populations expand exponentially. Our population isn't expanding exponentially. World population grew at 2%/yr in 1960, 1.55% in 1995, 1.25% in 2005, 1.18% in

Populations expand exponentially. Our population isn't expanding exponentially. World population grew at 2%/yr in 1960, 1.55% in 1995, 1.25% in 2005, 1.18% in 2015, 1.14% in 2016, and 1.12% this year. Soon every person we send off the planet will just reduce earth population by 1. We'll be lucky if people reproduce enough to keep the population steady.

vidarh 9y ago
It's very interesting actually to see how perceptions lag reality in this respect. People are still largely holding on to the idea that we're headed towards massive overpopulation thanks to exponential growth. But current projections is a population in the region of 10bn first by the end of the century, with some projections suggesting population decline from as early as 2040 (though that's an outlier). More scenarios predict a peak in the 2070-2100 timeframe; some predict continued, but much reduced growth beyond 2100. As far as I'm aware, though, all reasonable scenarios suggest that the rate of growth will at the very least continue to slow for a long time.
Tepix 9y ago
Look at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev%C3%B6lkerungsentwicklung#/media/File:World-pop-hist-de-2.png https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev%C3%B6lkerungsentwicklung#/... That looks pretty exponential to me. If it no longer looks exponential when looking at the last few years perhaps it's because we're running into resource limits.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  s-curves look exponential when you're in the middle of the curve. It's true that animal populations peak (s-curve) when they hit resource limits (ie: carrying capacity of the environment). But our population has slowed because of education (in particular, education of women)... it's an effect thats been repeated all over the world. If it were resource limits, we would see things like famine (killing the excess members of the population), rampant disease (which becomes easier to spread when people are closer to each other), etc. We're definitely not there in the developed world; and the 3rd world isnt there either, since they have some of the highest reproductive rates.

vidarh 9y ago

It's very interesting actually to see how perceptions lag reality in this respect. People are still largely holding on to the idea that we're headed towards massive overpopulation thanks to exponential growth. But current projections is a population in the region of 10bn first by the end of the century, with some projections suggesting population decline from as early as 2040 (though that's an outlier). More scenarios predict a peak in the 2070-2100 timeframe; some predict continued, but much reduced growth beyond 2100. As far as I'm aware, though, all reasonable scenarios suggest that the rate of growth will at the very least continue to slow for a long time.

Tepix 9y ago

Look at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev%C3%B6lkerungsentwicklung#/media/File:World-pop-hist-de-2.png https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bev%C3%B6lkerungsentwicklung#/... That looks pretty exponential to me. If it no longer looks exponential when looking at the last few years perhaps it's because we're running into resource limits.

rgbrenner 9y ago
s-curves look exponential when you're in the middle of the curve. It's true that animal populations peak (s-curve) when they hit resource limits (ie: carrying capacity of the environment). But our population has slowed because of education (in particular, education of women)... it's an effect thats been repeated all over the world. If it were resource limits, we would see things like famine (killing the excess members of the population), rampant disease (which becomes easier to spread when people are closer to each other), etc. We're definitely not there in the developed world; and the 3rd world isnt there either, since they have some of the highest reproductive rates.