To argue anything other than its exponential is to zoom into an area of the curve that is meaningless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_wo

To argue anything other than its exponential is to zoom into an area of the curve that is meaningless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population#/media/File:Population_curve.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_... I found the actual population estimate he seems to be referencing are from the Lancelet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#Other_projections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow... There are enough referenced facts on that wiki page to know that is not a certainty. Human population is obviously not strictly exponential, as there have been worldwide phenomena that lower it globally, and these will happen again in the future, but if the net growth rate is even 0.1% it is not linear, it is exponential. Only when the growth rate equals the replacement rate (deaths) will it suddenly be static, but if it increases even a hair over that its exponential at that moment (because new humans produce more new humans). Also as we know from microbiology human population with finite resources can't be exponential in the long run as resources will limit it, so sure its not an exponential function because it obviously is a logarithmic function (likely with a whole other side to the graph once it reaches its peak). Sure maybe we are smarter than this, but it does seem like a leap to get there. So yes technically you are 100% right human population is not and cannot be exponential, it just has been for the past few centuries, and there isn't a good reason to expect it not to be in the future.