3 ms·

> "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

by 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.)
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > What you said was that population was increasing without constraint. And that's correct -- any population increase above zero is without constraint. All one need do is calculate the doubling time: http://arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html http://arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html > The fact that the rate of growth is declining does suggest the presence of one or more constraints ... Yes, or more likely, it's a random fluctuation indicative of nothing in particular. The latter assumption, which may seem overly skeptical, is how a scientist is expected to look at an unexplained change in the rate, based on a precept called the null hypothesis -- a presumption that (in a manner of speaking) it's all random and meaningless. > ... and it argues against your implication that "mass death" is the only likely way out. Not really. Remember that nature efficiently picks out those with the highest birthrates and makes them the entire future population. My point is that population growth is naturally unstable, depending only on food sources and a willingness to push other species out of the way. 1.1% per annum may not seem like a very large rate of increase, but 63 years doesn't seem like a very long time to double the world's population either. Exponential increases of all kinds are rather scary to model. They're scary enough when one looks at compound interest and how that naturally creates a chasm between rich and poor over time, but the "big show" for exponential increases is population, where much more is at stake. > For what it's worth, I have taken calculus. Okay, glad to hear it. Given that, I think you will appreciate what I thought when I heard you object that population couldn't be increasing because the rate of increase was decreasing. > And if you're the guy who wrote AppleWriter: Nice job! I liked that program. I used it in high school. Yes, that's me. Thanks.

by lutusp 13y ago

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.)
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > What you said was that population was increasing without constraint. And that's correct -- any population increase above zero is without constraint. All one need do is calculate the doubling time: http://arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html http://arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html > The fact that the rate of growth is declining does suggest the presence of one or more constraints ... Yes, or more likely, it's a random fluctuation indicative of nothing in particular. The latter assumption, which may seem overly skeptical, is how a scientist is expected to look at an unexplained change in the rate, based on a precept called the null hypothesis -- a presumption that (in a manner of speaking) it's all random and meaningless. > ... and it argues against your implication that "mass death" is the only likely way out. Not really. Remember that nature efficiently picks out those with the highest birthrates and makes them the entire future population. My point is that population growth is naturally unstable, depending only on food sources and a willingness to push other species out of the way. 1.1% per annum may not seem like a very large rate of increase, but 63 years doesn't seem like a very long time to double the world's population either. Exponential increases of all kinds are rather scary to model. They're scary enough when one looks at compound interest and how that naturally creates a chasm between rich and poor over time, but the "big show" for exponential increases is population, where much more is at stake. > For what it's worth, I have taken calculus. Okay, glad to hear it. Given that, I think you will appreciate what I thought when I heard you object that population couldn't be increasing because the rate of increase was decreasing. > And if you're the guy who wrote AppleWriter: Nice job! I liked that program. I used it in high school. Yes, that's me. Thanks.