3 ms·

> To make that claim, you need to define "rate". "rate" means per capita per year. By "a century ago" I meant around 1913; 1800 would be TWO centuries ago. The

by glenra 13y ago

> To make that claim, you need to define "rate". "rate" means per capita per year. By "a century ago" I meant around 1913; 1800 would be TWO centuries ago. The murder rate in the US has been in the general ballpark of 5-10 per 100,000 annually since 1910. Currently we're near the low point of the last century. Um, here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_late... Quote: "Today's murder rate is essentially at a low point of the past century. The murder rate in 2011 was lower than it was in 1911. And the trend is downward. Whatever we've been doing over the last 20-30 years seems to be working, more or less. The murder rate has been cut by more than half since 1980: from 10.7 to 4.7." > But the rate per population might be unchanged (not likely), but if so, that supports the idea that increased population is a factor, which circles back to my original point. You now appear to be stark raving bonkers. No, silly, if the rate is unchanged it does NOT support your point. Yes, as there are more people, there are likely to be more murders as an absolute number. There are also likely to be more hugs, more kisses, more birthday parties, and more people making silly arguments over the internet. NONE of those constitute a population-limiting crisis. Well, except maybe that last one. :-)

lutusp 13y ago
> "rate" means per capita per year. That's by no means the only meaning of "rate". The meaning of a rate depends on the two values involved -- the dividend and divisor. The identity of both defines a specific use of the term "rate". "Murders divided by years" is one example of a rate. "Murders divided by (years times population)" is another. And "(mb-ma) divided by ((yb-ya) times (pb-pa))" starts us toward a moving average. Rate doesn't have only one meaning -- to accept your definition would severely constrain mathematics. > No, silly, if the rate is unchanged it does NOT support your point. Of course it does -- given a rapidly increasing population and the same rate, it means the absolute number of incidents has increased. That was my point. > There are also likely to be more hugs, more kisses, more birthday parties, and more people making silly arguments over the internet. NONE of those constitute a population-limiting crisis. But in truth, all of them do. It's a classic case of an increasing population held within a finite land mass -- eventually the system collapses. If the population is increasing without constraint, it doesn't matter what those people are doing apart from increasing their numbers -- the fact that they're increasing their numbers eventually becomes the only issue worth addressing.
- glenra 13y ago
  >> "rate" means per capita per year. >That's by no means the only meaning of "rate". It is the standard definition when talking about a CRIME rate. Googling "define crime rate" returns things like this: "the ratio of crimes in an area to the population of that area; expressed per 1000 population per year" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=crime%20rate http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=crime%20rate A "murder rate", being a fair bit smaller, is almost always expressed per 100,000 people per year. > If the population is increasing without constraint It isn't. Population growth rates have rapidly declined all over the world. The US population would already be shrinking were it not for immigration. Even Bangladesh and India are currently reproducing at right around replacement levels.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > It is the standard definition when talking about a CRIME rate. That wasn't your claim, and it's false in any case. There's no standard definition of "rate" -- you need to define your terms, and "rate" means a measure of change, not any specific measure without additional information. In any case, the exchange below tells me that you really don't understand what "rate" means. >> If the population is increasing without constraint > It isn't. Population growth rates [emphasis added] have rapidly declined all over the world. Honestly. I say population is increasing. You reply by saying that the "growth rate", i.e. the first derivative of population, has declined. Both are true. To sort this out, take Calculus. Until you understand the difference between a function and its first derivative, we won't be able to discuss this issue. http://www.arachnoid.com/calculus/ http://www.arachnoid.com/calculus/ Also, for the actual worldwide population growth rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth "In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%." That rate, if sustained, means the world's population will double in 63 years.
    - glenra 13y ago
      > Honestly. I say population is increasing. No. What you said was that population was increasing without constraint. It's that last bit I was responding to. The fact that the rate of growth is declining does suggest the presence of one or more constraints, even if the overall growth rate hasn't quite reversed just yet. The primary form of the constraint appears to be that as childhood survival rates and living standards improve, families voluntarily choose to have fewer kids. This is happening all over the world, there's no reason to think it will stop any time soon, and it argues against your implication that "mass death" is the only likely way out. (For what it's worth, I have taken calculus. And if you're the guy who wrote AppleWriter: Nice job! I liked that program. I used it in high school.)

by glenra 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> "rate" means per capita per year. That's by no means the only meaning of "rate". The meaning of a rate depends on the two values involved -- the dividend and divisor. The identity of both defines a specific use of the term "rate". "Murders divided by years" is one example of a rate. "Murders divided by (years times population)" is another. And "(mb-ma) divided by ((yb-ya) times (pb-pa))" starts us toward a moving average. Rate doesn't have only one meaning -- to accept your definition would severely constrain mathematics. > No, silly, if the rate is unchanged it does NOT support your point. Of course it does -- given a rapidly increasing population and the same rate, it means the absolute number of incidents has increased. That was my point. > There are also likely to be more hugs, more kisses, more birthday parties, and more people making silly arguments over the internet. NONE of those constitute a population-limiting crisis. But in truth, all of them do. It's a classic case of an increasing population held within a finite land mass -- eventually the system collapses. If the population is increasing without constraint, it doesn't matter what those people are doing apart from increasing their numbers -- the fact that they're increasing their numbers eventually becomes the only issue worth addressing.

glenra 13y ago
>> "rate" means per capita per year. >That's by no means the only meaning of "rate". It is the standard definition when talking about a CRIME rate. Googling "define crime rate" returns things like this: "the ratio of crimes in an area to the population of that area; expressed per 1000 population per year" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=crime%20rate http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=crime%20rate A "murder rate", being a fair bit smaller, is almost always expressed per 100,000 people per year. > If the population is increasing without constraint It isn't. Population growth rates have rapidly declined all over the world. The US population would already be shrinking were it not for immigration. Even Bangladesh and India are currently reproducing at right around replacement levels.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > It is the standard definition when talking about a CRIME rate. That wasn't your claim, and it's false in any case. There's no standard definition of "rate" -- you need to define your terms, and "rate" means a measure of change, not any specific measure without additional information. In any case, the exchange below tells me that you really don't understand what "rate" means. >> If the population is increasing without constraint > It isn't. Population growth rates [emphasis added] have rapidly declined all over the world. Honestly. I say population is increasing. You reply by saying that the "growth rate", i.e. the first derivative of population, has declined. Both are true. To sort this out, take Calculus. Until you understand the difference between a function and its first derivative, we won't be able to discuss this issue. http://www.arachnoid.com/calculus/ http://www.arachnoid.com/calculus/ Also, for the actual worldwide population growth rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth "In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%." That rate, if sustained, means the world's population will double in 63 years.
  - glenra 13y ago
    > Honestly. I say population is increasing. No. What you said was that population was increasing without constraint. It's that last bit I was responding to. The fact that the rate of growth is declining does suggest the presence of one or more constraints, even if the overall growth rate hasn't quite reversed just yet. The primary form of the constraint appears to be that as childhood survival rates and living standards improve, families voluntarily choose to have fewer kids. This is happening all over the world, there's no reason to think it will stop any time soon, and it argues against your implication that "mass death" is the only likely way out. (For what it's worth, I have taken calculus. And if you're the guy who wrote AppleWriter: Nice job! I liked that program. I used it in high school.)