PDA

View Full Version : The Question of Population Growth

Vitalux
10th August 2013, 03:05
I got a challenge for you.

Take the world's population of today of about 7 Billion people.

Next choose a doubling rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubling_time) for population growth and apply it in reverse to see how many generations you would have to go back to only get to two people.

Hint: the doubling rate generally for humans is about 55 - 65 years

You just might be surprised.

Imjusttrying
10th August 2013, 03:23
I got a challenge for you.

Take the world's population of today of about 7 Billion people.

Next choose a doubling rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubling_time) for population growth and apply it in reverse to see how many generations you would have to go back to only get to two people.

Hint: the doubling rate generally for humans is about 55 - 65 years

You just might be surprised.

So I just did that and used the number 60 as the average doubling rate and got the number 1,920. Which is incredible, but can I ask why you gave me this challenge?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

I just realized I didn't answer your question correctly. I got 32 generations that it took to get to two people from 7 Billion. Now that number is amazing!!

Vitalux
10th August 2013, 04:00
I just realized I didn't answer your question correctly. I got 32 generations that it took to get to two people from 7 Billion. Now that number is amazing!!

Good stuff.

I'm glad that you were able to catch it......most don't. :cool:

TargeT
10th August 2013, 04:28
I just realized I didn't answer your question correctly. I got 32 generations that it took to get to two people from 7 Billion. Now that number is amazing!!

Good stuff.

I'm glad that you were able to catch it......most don't. :cool:

I think this is highly inaccurate.

it doesn't account for the dark ages, the crusades... or all the other events that seriously stunted population (back when it was easily controlled).

Vitalux
10th August 2013, 04:57
I just realized I didn't answer your question correctly. I got 32 generations that it took to get to two people from 7 Billion. Now that number is amazing!!

Good stuff.

I'm glad that you were able to catch it......most don't. :cool:

I think this is highly inaccurate.

it doesn't account for the dark ages, the crusades... or all the other events that seriously stunted population (back when it was easily controlled).

Really, does that include the New World as well?
What about the other isolated pockets around the planet which were not suffering from famine, disease, or wars.

For example, when the Europeans discovered the New World in 1492, did they encounter any over population problems in the Pacific Islands, North, or South America where food, climate and opportunity for population growth would have been favorable?

Even if the doubling rate was every hundred years in the America's prior to 1492, there would have been excess of 6 Billion human's in North America had two natives had stated to have babies about 3 thousand years previous.

Like I said, most don't get it. Cognitive dissonance I suppose.

TargeT
10th August 2013, 05:16
honestly my response was not backed by research, I am very possibly in the wrong here (I despise the type of response I gave; and am dully ashamed of it), I will research this tomorrow and see what I come up with, thank you for bringing this particular topic to light so that (at least) I may learn from it.

I'm sure if dissent was felt by me it is not an overly uncommon notion, we shall get the facts strait here :).

christian
10th August 2013, 05:34
got the number 1,920 [...] I got 32 generations that it took to get to two people from 7 Billion

1,920 is the number of years that 32 generations live if each generation lives for 60 years.

So mankind started with 2 people in the year AD 93?

Given that 7 billion people is just an approximation, are you trying to say that mankind started at the turn of the ages, Vitalux?

Sorry, I think this theory with this particular doubling rate and average life span is pretty useless, considering all the fluctuations over time and throughout the world.

Shannow
10th August 2013, 08:23
Have wondered same over many years...

The one hing that I hold is that the start wasn't 2 people, and an immediate start to "doubling".

Humans had pretty tenuous grasp of the Earth for a fair amount of the time, and with a subsistence existence probably drew straight lines for a long period of time. Human sacrifice and canibalism would have helped keep the straight lines for quite a while as well.

When we started enslaving humans, animals, and fossil fuels, our productive capacity became such that we COULD with fairly repeatable regularity guarantee that offspring that were viable enough to produce their own offspring were the norm, then a balance equation could kick in.

Human nature isn't the same as a golden staph colony, in that we have will and intent. The western world is now demonstrating that we can willingly and voluntarily control our family sizes to less than a simple "replacement" rate (the rate at which mortality before procreation must be accounted for, the 2.1/2.2 children). If it wasn't for immigration, some European countries would be faced with dwindling populations, and no worker drones to flip burgers or clean telephones.

Vitalux
10th August 2013, 13:04
honestly my response was not backed by research, I am very possibly in the wrong here (I despise the type of response I gave; and am dully ashamed of it), I will research this tomorrow and see what I come up with, thank you for bringing this particular topic to light so that (at least) I may learn from it.

I'm sure if dissent was felt by me it is not an overly uncommon notion, we shall get the facts strait here :).

TargeT, I have to give you credit here, because you were able to put aside your knee jerk reaction and consider the challenge of population.

My part of my background is in environmental microbiology where I studied population growth of bacteria and mammals , so I tend to have some awareness of population doubling rates, population growth and various factors of stress that keep populations of various organisms/ animal in check or balance.
I mention the above for your consideration that before I presented this fact, I have studied it for years and am aware of various arguments against it.

If modern day humans have been reproducing for at least 50 000 years than current population growth figures are far too low.

It would appear that something, or someone periodically causes severe reductions in global or regional populations.

One of the things I often point out is that humans beings are not very intelligent.
Even when the evidence is right in our faces we will refuse to see it, and fall back to circular thinking of what we have been conditioned to believe.

Historically, prior to European discovery of America, North & South America food resources would have been in abundance. Human's were the top of the food chain.

There is also evidence that anatomical human beings artifacts and skeletons have been scientifically proven to have existed in central America that have been dated as far back as two hundred and fifty thousand years ( 250 000 yrs). Specially this can be demonstrated by the archaeological evidence discovered at Huatulco, central Mexico.

It takes a great deal of digging to get to the truth, and there appears to be a whole lot of forces that are doing a swell job of making sure we do not unearth the truth on a massive scale.

The mass media and education buries more truth than it reveals so most are hopeless to know what is real and what is fictional.

Who ever runs this world, is doing a fine job of keeping us stupid.

Vitalux
10th August 2013, 13:18
got the number 1,920 [...] I got 32 generations that it took to get to two people from 7 Billion

1,920 is the number of years that 32 generations live if each generation lives for 60 years.

So mankind started with 2 people in the year AD 93?

Given that 7 billion people is just an approximation, are you trying to say that mankind started at the turn of the ages, Vitalux?

I am trying to simply draw the reader to "think" about why the population is so low when you do the math.

If one studies archaeology, it can be determined that human beings have been around on this planet for at least one hundred thousand years.
It may also be very effectively argued that human beings have been around on earth for hundreds of millions of years.
-Michael Cremo - Extreme Human Antiquity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFxQn6Q34mI)

My goal is simply to get people to try and do some math and try and observe that with the current Earth model of human population growth, as taught in schools and mainstream media is flawed. :nod:
Some intelligent factor is controlling our planets population down through the ages, and it is highly unlikely a result of;

- we are eating each other by cannibalism,
- a result of high mortality rates of children,
- we are homicidal and kill off each other
- or through a poor choice of diet.

I do not make any statements that humans have only been around since AD 92.

sdv
10th August 2013, 14:04
The whole model of population growth does not make sense when I consider the questions you pose Vitalux.

Today, fastest population growth is in undeveloped countries, but that is also where the death rate is highest (from unnatural causes) and natural disasters take their greatest toll on the population. Plentiful land and resources in Africa pre-colonization (the continent was teeming with wildlife), Africa was supposedly populated many thousands of years before colonization, yet population growth has only exploded since colonization. How come? Tribal Africans have lots of children and start having children at an early age, and abundant resources would have supported this. How much of an effect did the slave trade have?

Interestingly, in Papua New Guinea (when the tribes living inland were discovered) the birth rate was low, and even though polygamy was practised, the women had one or two children each (they just said no to the men). Interestingly, also, is that the tribes there tell a story of people who come down from the sky via a ladder and take women.

What was the average number of children that Native Americans had pre-colonization? What about Aborigines in Australia?

Perhaps human beings naturally do not have many children and live in a sustainable way. What changes this?

And, it would take a world-wide disaster to knock back world population significantly. A local disaster such as a tsunami or volcanic eruption would decimate the local population but not affect populations elsewhere so overall world natural disasters should not have kept population low (it doesn't now)? Drought and famine? In the past people would move and the population would soon get back to the same levels. The kind of natural disasters (such as Yellowstone) that would affect the entire world's population don't happen often.

If undeveloped people have a higher birth rate (as it is at present), then in Africa, where AIDS is most prevalent but has not significantly slowed down population growth, what slowed down population growth in the past?

Courtney Brown's latest RV project suggests that human beings reach a certain level of technological advancement and then self-destruct on a global scale, leaving only a very small population of mostly women to start again.

sirdipswitch
10th August 2013, 14:59
Something else to consider, is the fact that 70% of the worlds population, are baby-boomers, and will be dead within the next 30 years, so we will then be back down to about 2 billion people, and start over again.

The only thing that I see clearly, is the fact that "something", has kept us from grossly over populating this rock we call home,
and it's a bunch smarter than us. AND, seems to have a plan of ITs' own. ccc.

TargeT
10th August 2013, 15:08
My part of my background is in environmental microbiology where I studied population growth of bacteria and mammals , so I tend to have some awareness of population doubling rates, population growth and various factors of stress that keep populations of various organisms/ animal in check or balance.
I mention the above for your consideration that before I presented this fact, I have studied it for years and am aware of various arguments against it.

If modern day humans have been reproducing for at least 50 000 years than current population growth figures are far too low.

Well I would think "apples and oranges" here; clearly stress alone does not limit population's expansion, here in the US we have negative birth rates

we have been steadily declining since 1910 when the birth rate/1000 people was 30, today its around 13.2.

Definition: This entry gives the average annual number of births during a year per 1,000 persons in the population at midyear; also known as crude birth rate. The birth rate is usually the dominant factor in determining the rate of population growth. It depends on both the level of fertility and the age structure of the population.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=25

It would appear that something, or someone periodically causes severe reductions in global or regional populations.

while I don't agree with a microbiological approach to birth rates being applied to humans, I do agree with this concept; and I think it goes beyond wars... disease used to be a major factor we still vaugely remember what happend during the black plague etc..

One of the things I often point out is that humans beings are not very intelligent.
Even when the evidence is right in our faces we will refuse to see it, and fall back to circular thinking of what we have been conditioned to believe.

True and not true, we have been conditioned to think this way, humans can be very inteligent when allowed the correct tools (such as the Trivium and Quadrivium , the 7 liberal arts and the bennifit of critical thinking can mostly correct what has been done to us over the years)

Historically, prior to European discovery of America, North & South America food resources would have been in abundance. Human's were the top of the food chain.

There is also evidence that anatomical human beings artifacts and skeletons have been scientifically proven to have existed in central America that have been dated as far back as two hundred and fifty thousand years ( 250 000 yrs). Specially this can be demonstrated by the archaeological evidence discovered at Hueyatlaco, central Mexico.

It takes a great deal of digging to get to the truth, and there appears to be a whole lot of forces that are doing a swell job of making sure we do not unearth the truth on a massive scale.

The mass media and education buries more truth than it reveals so most are hopeless to know what is real and what is fictional.

Who ever runs this world, is doing a fine job of keeping us stupid.

I'd partially agree with what you are saying here, but I think it's a bit more complex... humans don't breed endlessly, we seem to find a comfort level and stop (perhaps china and india's population is still growing fast due to their lack of this comfort level)

this also could be an explanation of why the poorer in america are reproducing much faster than the affluent.

The only thing that I see clearly, is the fact that "something", has kept us from grossly over populating this rock we call home,
and it's a bunch smarter than us. AND, seems to have a plan of ITs' own. ccc.

Could it be the collective "us" ?

does it have to be an external force?

Vitalux
10th August 2013, 15:09
Something else to consider, is the fact that 70% of the worlds population, are baby-boomers, and will be dead within the next 30 years, so we will then be back down to about 2 billion people, and start over again.

That is most interesting, I have never heard that theory before :ohwell:

The would population will naturally decrease by 5 Billion people in 30 years, due to the loss of the baby boomers dying of old age :confused:

Did you read that somewhere, or is it a personal theory? :unsure:

Paul
10th August 2013, 15:13
Something else to consider, is the fact that 70% of the worlds population, are baby-boomers, and will be dead within the next 30 years, so we will then be back down to about 2 billion people, and start over again.
I suspect your numbers are from a different reality than I'm living in :).

Vitalux
10th August 2013, 15:33
Well I would think "apples and oranges" here; clearly stress alone does not limit population's expansion, here in the US we have negative birth rates

we have been steadily declining since 1910 when the birth rate/1000 people was 30, today its around 13.2.

Just to make a point.
This is what a typical graph looks like for growth population growth. All graphs typically show the same pattern for population growth exponentially.

World population has been growing exponentially as far as the data that I have viewed. For example, in the past 60 years the World population has doubled from approximately 3 Billion to 7 Billion. :nod:

Plus just to illustrate, rather it be human population growth or bacteria, the expansion models are basically the same when you compare the growth curves on the above and below charts. :ohwell:

Logistic model to describe bacteria growth

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680Su12/Gilles/Assignment12/Bacteria%20Population.png

Jake
10th August 2013, 15:40
Human life expectancy at birth is estimated to have doubled or more between 1900 and 2000, shooting up from approximately 30 years to nearly 65 years. Surely, this has augmented the numbers a bit. A dramatic plunge in death rates leads to vigorous population growth.

The UN is predicting population decreases.

http://go635254.s3.amazonaws.com/redgreenandblue/files/2010/01/children1.jpg See webpage for more. (http://www.thegwpf.org/looming-population-implosion/)

As recently as 1992 it was predicted that there would be 7.17 billion people on Earth by 2010 instead of the actual 6.8 billion. In fact, the fertility rate has fallen by more than 40% since 1950.

Being that we have unearthed fossilized human footprints,, I'd say that the population of earth humans have all sorts of trends, and ebbs and flows. I would say that entire 'ages' of man have come and gone, and there is a history that we have not yet embraced.

If the fertility rate among humans keeps falling, we may be looking at the beginning of the end for another 'age' of earth humans. That is my own opinion.

I think there are simply, too many variables to accurately calculate population explosions or implosions.

Jake.

Vitalux
10th August 2013, 16:30
Human life expectancy at birth is estimated to have doubled or more between 1900 and 2000, shooting up from approximately 30 years to nearly 65 years. Surely, this has augmented the numbers a bit. A dramatic plunge in death rates leads to vigorous population growth.

Jake.

Jake here is something to consider.

When the mortality rate is high in any given species, usually the birth rate is also high to compensate.
It all works in balance, rather it be mosquitoes, flies :frog:, or humans.

In our historical past, mothers often gave birth to 12 or more children, many children died but enough survived to copulate and continue the growth of human expansion. Overall, the population growth was still relatively the same as what it is presently today, as it would have been since our distant ancestors walked planet Earth.
As long as growth conditions of an organism are favorable, food, climate, lack of predators to stress the population, than population growth of a species will continue to expand exponentially. It appear to be a rule of nature.

No :ohwell: matter how one slices it, Earth Population is far too low for the time reported that we have dominated this world as a species.

Even if one was to argue that it takes a given family ( or community) one thousand years to double in size (which would be totally and insanely ridiculous), The world population would still be at 8 Billion in 32 thousand years.

Humans have been been around for 100's of millions of years all around the world. ( source Michael Cremo - forbidden archaeology (http://www.mcremo.com/))

Even at the most conservative estimates we have at least been around 50 000 years.

But like I said, most wont get it, and will spend most of their time refusing to see what is the only thing to see.

The population is too low for the period of time human's are suppose to have been here for.:nerd:

ROMANWKT
11th August 2013, 02:54
Yes I had thought of this on and off, but never did the sums going backwards, there is something here that should be investigated, that on average the world population could be no older that 2,000 years, and why would that be??, if the climatic recycling occurs every 3,500 years, or the owners of the farm return to harvest their stocks, the civilization from the hollow earth wipes us out for their stocks, there was a sudden tsunami that reduced the population this time around, very interesting, hope more will offer answers, speculation is good for now, interesting!!

roman

Vitalux
11th August 2013, 06:46
what about a virus control mechanism??, what about low consciousness the cleansing off??

Thank you ROMANWKT for your post and question.

What I try and avoid, sometimes is speculating.

The consideration of a control virus mechanism would be trying to make an educated guess, hence to speculate :confused:.

So far, with population, i have been using mathematics models which are based on various direct observations of population expansion.:ranger:

Discovery, and theory work best by the least amount of speculation and the maximum degree of observation and mindfullness.

There are a great number of clues in the environment, and nature, to give those that area able to aware, a heads up, that where you are, is not where you actually think you are. :yo:

skippy
11th August 2013, 08:50
6a0zhc1y_Ns

ROMANWKT
11th August 2013, 09:09
Hi Vitalux, vital light

Its sound very intriguing, and also sound as you have come up with a answer for yourself, an understanding of what the reason may be to this puzzle, is this a time space thing?? as you can see I am back to speculating again, looking at nature, lots to speculate about, and who says we are on planet earth anyways. my awareness moves me into many direction, my mindfulness is locked somewhere in a very tired head.

Regards to you

roman

ROMANWKT
11th August 2013, 09:18
6a0zhc1y_Ns

James Wolfensohn, former president of The World Bank and CEO of Wolfensohn and Co., addressed Stanford Graduate School of Business students with details about his work at the World Bank during its transition years and how the equation between developed and developing countries is changing. Wolfensohn claimed that in the next 40 years, a global power shift will see today's leading economic countries drop from having 80% of the world's income to 35%.

Global Speaker Series: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gmp/speak...

Recorded: January 11, 2010

This is the intro to your video, having difficulties correlating this information to the subject matter here on this thread, could you elaborate its relationship here?

regards

roman

skippy
11th August 2013, 10:12
Hi Roman, thanks for the intro..

The video is pretty informative about some additional challenges in front of us. We have population growth on the one hand and changing wealth dynamics and distribution on the other hand. How to cope with a growing middle class of hundreds of millions of people in countries like China and India. Hard working people who are wishing for to drive in the same luxurous cars and to live in the same quality housing as in the West. Dynamics of globalization and economics will put some additional constraints on the equation in the years ahead. Tremendous forces at play here..

Courtney Brown's latest RV project suggests that human beings reach a certain level of technological advancement and then self-destruct on a global scale, leaving only a very small population of mostly women to start again.

ykiaSRneZcg

ROMANWKT
11th August 2013, 10:17
Hi Roman, thanks for the intro..

The video is pretty informative about some additional challenges in front of us. We have population growth on the one hand and changing wealth dynamics and distribution on the other hand. How to cope with a growing middle class of hundreds of millions of people in countries like China and India. Hard working people who are wishing for to drive the same luxurous cars and to live in the same quality housing as in the West. Dynamics of globalization and economics will put some additional constraints on the equation in the years ahead. Tremendous forces at play here..

Hi Skippy,

Yes that is a problem which cannot be sustained, but what of the conundrum of humans race being 2,000 years old???

regards

roman

The Truth Is In There
11th August 2013, 11:30
nature is self-regulating. mother earth has always found a way to get rid of too many humans (if it wasn't done first by the "controllers" of our little experiment here).

i'm not surprised that the models taught in school are wrong. many of these theories are flawed intentionally.

anyway, the extreme population growth that is expected for our future will not take place as expected, that's quite certain. these high numbers are merely thrown out to justify certain laws, regulations and procedures that have been or are planned to be put in place to control the "mob".

sirdipswitch
11th August 2013, 13:03
Something else to consider, is the fact that 70% of the worlds population, are baby-boomers, and will be dead within the next 30 years, so we will then be back down to about 2 billion people, and start over again.

That is most interesting, I have never heard that theory before :ohwell:

The would population will naturally decrease by 5 Billion people in 30 years, due to the loss of the baby boomers dying of old age :confused:

Did you read that somewhere, or is it a personal theory? :unsure:

Something I figured out all by my lonesome, previous to this discussion. I've read many times over the years that 70% of our population, are babyboomers. Meaning, those born in the 10 year baby boom, directly after WWII. I just figured that in the next 30 years, it will put them up around 75 - 85, and probly droppin out. But, if you wanna give a little more leeway, let's call it 20 - 40 years. 30% left, out of 7.5 billion, would be 2.25 billion left. But of course, you would need to factor in all born and dyin, between now and then. All I'm sayin is the fact that this world has a really high percentage of old people gettin ready to croak. Then also, there is China, with stringent "birth control", whose population will drop dramatically in about 40 - 60 years.

And then there's me, that keeps sayin that over population is just a matter of perspective anyway, cuz when you take the worlds 7.5 billion, and stand them all in one spot, they won't fill up the state of Road Island,,, our smallest state!!!

Jake
11th August 2013, 13:53
Something else to consider, is the fact that 70% of the worlds population, are baby-boomers, and will be dead within the next 30 years, so we will then be back down to about 2 billion people, and start over again.

That is most interesting, I have never heard that theory before :ohwell:

The would population will naturally decrease by 5 Billion people in 30 years, due to the loss of the baby boomers dying of old age :confused:

Did you read that somewhere, or is it a personal theory? :unsure:

Something I figured out all by my lonesome, previous to this discussion. I've read many times over the years that 70% of our population, are babyboomers. Meaning, those born in the 10 year baby boom, directly after WWII. I just figured that in the next 30 years, it will put them up around 75 - 85, and probly droppin out. But, if you wanna give a little more leeway, let's call it 20 - 40 years. 30% left, out of 7.5 billion, would be 2.25 billion left. But of course, you would need to factor in all born and dyin, between now and then. All I'm sayin is the fact that this world has a really high percentage of old people gettin ready to croak. Then also, there is China, with stringent "birth control", whose population will drop dramatically in about 40 - 60 years.

And then there's me, that keeps sayin that over population is just a matter of perspective anyway, cuz when you take the worlds 7.5 billion, and stand them all in one spot, they won't fill up the state of Road Island,,, our smallest state!!!

That is the icing on the cake, right there!! Whoever said that 7Billion people = doomsday ?? It has been mentioned already, but I will re-state it,, It is all being controlled. :) TPTB never asked themselves, "How do we control 7 Billion people??". Just the opposite, they asked themselves,, "How do we NOT CONTROL 7 Billion people??" If my memory serves me correctly, it was the Rand Corporation that predicted the big population burst, and 'advised' tptb on how to take control of the situation by predicting (creating) the systems of controls, and putting in place many of the mechanisms that we see today. (of course it is an old plan,, but it is coming to fruition.) With just a couple of million folks on the planet, concepts like democracy and government guaranteed rights, are different than if you have hundreds of millions, if not, Billions. It is MOB rule, with so many people... They would rather control a mob, than to deal with freedom and rights!! :) There are countless reasons that a ruling class would allow for this kind of population burst. I trust mother nature to keep a much closer eye on things than I do! ;)

Jake.

Tesseract
11th August 2013, 15:39
I seem to be missing something in all this; I don’t recall reading or being told that historically the world population was meant to have doubled with each generation – is this a conventional theory?

Indigenous people did employ birth control measures, for example by cutting a small hole at the base of the urethra so that no sperm was transferred during sex. If the couple wanted a child they just placed a wooden plug in the hole to restore the natural plumbing. Such was done in Australia, as well as (I think) in Africa. In Australia there is also a small seed or fruit that was eaten by women wishing to abort a foetus. There was a small chance the pregnant woman would also die. I imagine after having a couple of kids a lot of women would tend to avoid having any more – who could blame them? So, I think it’s clear that population management is an age-old practice and may well have kept many societies at a flat or very low level of population growth. Of course, there are other attenuating factors as well, which some people have mentioned.

The answer as to why population increase rates have changed I think is very complicated.

Here’s another question: if a man and a woman together have to produce two children to replace themselves – thus keeping the population steady, how many generations should it take for the population of China (only 1 child per couple) to fall to 10 % of its current value?

Vitalux
12th August 2013, 03:35
Here’s another question: if a man and a woman together have to produce two children to replace themselves – thus keeping the population steady, how many generations should it take for the population of China (only 1 child per couple) to fall to 10 % of its current value?

It never would decrease, but still continue to increase exponentially.

Let me explain..

2 ( original base pair)

Mother + Father .......have two children. But lets say, they have two girls Jill + Jane :music::girl_cray3:

2 + 2= 4

When Jill and Jane are 20 years old they each have two children Mary, Martha, Kelly & Kathy :cheer2::mullet: :drama::lalala:

4 +4 = 8

At 20 years of age, Mary, Martha, & Kelly & Kathy, marry and they produce two children each: Steven, Bill, George, Jack and Joe

8 + 8 = 16

When the original parents are 80 years old they have indirectly produced 14 offspring.

In the above example, in 60 years the population of Henry and Helen's family have increased by a factor of 1400%, and this is excluding Henry and Helen from being included in the 1400 percent.

But don't listen to what I have to say, I probably don't know what I am talking about.:tea:

TargeT
12th August 2013, 03:39
Here’s another question: if a man and a woman together have to produce two children to replace themselves – thus keeping the population steady, how many generations should it take for the population of China (only 1 child per couple) to fall to 10 % of its current value?

It never would decrease, but still continue to increase exponentially.

Then why is America's birth rate so low that it is currently "depopulating" itself ?

you are working from a biological reproduction stance, this is not conducive with reality.

multiple data sets show us this.

Vitalux
12th August 2013, 03:42
Here’s another question: if a man and a woman together have to produce two children to replace themselves – thus keeping the population steady, how many generations should it take for the population of China (only 1 child per couple) to fall to 10 % of its current value?

It never would decrease, but still continue to increase exponentially.

Then why is America's birth rate so low that it is currently "depopulating" itself ?

you are working from a biological reproduction stance, this is not conducive with reality.

multiple data sets show us this.

You are quite correct, I have no idea what I am talking about and I am totally ignorant.

So sorry. :cheers:

Shannow
12th August 2013, 11:37
Something I figured out all by my lonesome, previous to this discussion. I've read many times over the years that 70% of our population, are babyboomers. Meaning, those born in the 10 year baby boom, directly after WWII. I just figured that in the next 30 years, it will put them up around 75 - 85, and probly droppin out. But, if you wanna give a little more leeway, let's call it 20 - 40 years. 30% left, out of 7.5 billion, would be 2.25 billion left. But of course, you would need to factor in all born and dyin, between now and then. All I'm sayin is the fact that this world has a really high percentage of old people gettin ready to croak. Then also, there is China, with stringent "birth control", whose population will drop dramatically in about 40 - 60 years.

Baby boomers have already set the stage for their retirement at least, if not exit.

At least in Australia, they had demarkation, import tarrifs, retirement pensions, superannuation schemes that didn't require them to save, but were paid out of current accounts...at retirement ages of 55-58...in spite of lives that would be much longer.

As they moved into positions of power, they reduced demarkation, tarriffs, made the workplace more "efficient", while making us "save for our own retirement", and not be able to do so until age 67 for those of us born after '67, to be re-evaluated in the future...

I was discussing with my parents that after the depression era that sacrificed all, the baby boomers turned out to be a selfish generation who wanted what was past, their inheritence (direct amd social) and then wanted the future generations to stand on their own, or scrap it out for themselves.

TargeT
12th August 2013, 15:49
You are quite correct, I have no idea what I am talking about and I am totally ignorant.

So sorry. :cheers:

oh come now, surely your idea deserves defense; in debate ideas are challanged.. Please continue with your explanation, I did not mean to infer you have no idea what you are talking about... I'm interested in what you have to say, but that doesn't mean I'm a "groupie" or "fanboy" or "yes man".

Operator
12th August 2013, 17:47
I think the doubling rate was not constant over time ...
E.g., for what it's worth: the bible speaks about humans with ages of a little less than 1000 years.

One of the things that increased the growth of the world's population was the industrial revolution.
So there are many other factors to include into the calculation.

But I really like your challenge ... it will keep a lot of us thinking!

Vitalux
13th August 2013, 00:00
You are quite correct, I have no idea what I am talking about and I am totally ignorant.

So sorry. :cheers:

oh come now, surely your idea deserves defense; in debate ideas are challanged.. Please continue with your explanation, I did not mean to infer you have no idea what you are talking about... I'm interested in what you have to say, but that doesn't mean I'm a "groupie" or "fanboy" or "yes man".

Sorry if I came off a bit odd there. I tried to totally simplify that #30 post so that a child could understand it, and was surprised that ....well like I said, most wont get it. It is too obvious for them to see.

I am using mathematical models here, and mathematical models can be pretty good for probability statistics.

The wonderful part about using math is that it is very logical.
hence no matter which way you slice simple logic 2 + 2 = 4 :ohwell:

In terms of my population explanation above (post #30) I was demonstrating that exponential growth can still occur when people choose to only have two children.

All populations of all things, rather it be single celled organisms - amoeba, or elephants, humans, monkeys, birds or fish, have a doubling rate of population.
It is just that simple. It is a fact of how this dimension works. If it didn't, there would be no life in it. Nothing would be able to procreate.

Ok now that we have that worked out.

What keeps the insects, animals, and every other living thing in population balance is environmental stress.

1. availability of a food source
2. Habitat
3. Predation by other animals. ( eat or be eaten)
4. Sickness & Disease

Humans are the top of the food chain, and as long as they have ample food, habitat to grow.
Humans don't have much of an environmental stress that controls the population relative to the animals. This is because human can modify their environment in a much more effective degree than the animals.

Generally, the doubling rate for humans is about 55 years ( depending on which statistic you tend to choose).

Why do you believe that the United States Population is decreasing? That doesn't make sense at all to me. :confused:

In 1996 the World population was about 5.6 Billion, today the world population is about 7.104 Billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census) according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population).

That is an increase in less than 20 years of 1.5 Billion.

The current U.S.A. population is over 311 million people (http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/uspopulation.htm) (311,800,000 in mid-2011) so the United States has the world's third largest population (following China and India).

In 1950 The population of United States was 150,697,361 or about 150 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_United_States_Census).
So it is clearly evident that he population of united States has doubled in approximately a 55 year time span.
In 1950 the world population was approximately 2.5 Billion (http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm).

Study a bit about population growth, instead of just trying to reason it out.

If you notice in Post 30. Every generation doubled:

2

4

8

16

Had I flow charted the next generation the population would have doubled to ....ta da :cheer2: 32

Unless there is an external stress to kill off humans ( and I am not talking about old age) the Earth Population will continue to double, until we reach caring capacity of our biota. What that exact carrying capacity is in terms of population is argumentative, however India has over 1.5 Billion people and they are continuing to thrive.

If you really want to expand your awareness....watch the video before
The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See - FULL LECTURE

Than feel free to give me your feedback, once you have done your research.

The Truth Is In There
13th August 2013, 10:49
so, thank god for regular wars, famines and epidemics! otherwise the little petri dish would be overflowing already. methinks we'll need another one soon, though.

Shannow
13th August 2013, 10:50
Exponential growth is not 2 people only having 2 children, that's linear growth, and assuming that the first two eventually die, it plateaus....take 2 people, who reach 20, and have children (2), who have 2 more, blah, blah, then die at 80, each.
Year Population
19 2
20 4
39 4
40 6
59 6
60 8
79 8
80 8
99 8
100 8

It's not exponential....linear, then stable.

Assuming some of the kids don't make it to procreative age, the replacement rate in western terms is 2.1. That's how many people are needed to draw a straight line.

US birth rate is 1.89, so there's not enough babies being born to sustain a stable population, so population WILL decline after the deaths of the more people not having babies washes out of the system (decades)....Italy was last I read down to less than 1.5, and was factoring on immigration into the country to keep the burger flippers up to the retirees.

When people can consciously control their birth rate, the bacterial equivalent no longer is a parallel, and one would hope that we are smart enough not to overpopulate the planet and force die-off like unreasoning species do (or shrink, like those deer stuck on an island somewhere near the UK to consume less resources).

Shannow
13th August 2013, 12:18
Vitalux,
re-read your post, and it's two individuals having two children...through which mechanism, either paternal incest or binary fission ?

One's pretty icky...and must involve some genetic manipulation, and the other I've not seen humans do.

However, you also state that these girls marry (and not their father, not his corpse I hope), so there are other populations interacting with your theoretical...and by definition, they are male...and not from he family.

So your progression is of a lineage, not a population...

Vitalux
13th August 2013, 17:01
Vitalux,
re-read your post, and it's two individuals having two children...through which mechanism, either paternal incest or binary fission ?

One's pretty icky...and must involve some genetic manipulation, and the other I've not seen humans do.

However, you also state that these girls marry (and not their father, not his corpse I hope), so there are other populations interacting with your theoretical...and by definition, they are male...and not from he family.

So your progression is of a lineage, not a population...

The above illustration (model) that I was doing was completely simplified so that a child could grasp it.
Obviously, the children would be having children with other people outside their units. Incest and binary fusion was not a factor.

At least in human genetics that it is very unlikely that you can create an entire population of from only two specimens.

The rest of your point I totally agree with. In terms of birth rate 1.89 vs 2.1 and a decline.

Regardless, the world population is continuing to double, and will continue to do so.

The concept of this post was to get people to try and figure out why the population of the world is rather low, for a species that have been around for at least 50K years or as long as 800 million years or more.

Perhaps you could give you could comment on that aspect?

Roisin
13th August 2013, 19:08
Our species has reached past its point of sustainable numbers and we're adding the entire population of Germany to the world's global population -- every year. In 20 years, the current world population will have TRIPLED. And by the middle of this century, the World Health Organization claims that there will be 9 billion people on our planet. This will cause an enormous strain on the already dwindling availability of our natural resources. Clean water will become more and more scarce. Entire species of animals that keep our ecosystem balanced will become more and more extinct. And due to overpopulation, people will steal and kill to stay alive. The name of the game will be 'the survival of the fittest'.

We are rapidly approaching a tipping point where concurrent with rapid exponential population growth will be an increase in the number of uncontainable global pandemics where only those who can afford to isolate and sustain themselves apart from the general population will survive it.

thunder24
13th August 2013, 19:56
so what if we hit an ice age, or the sun turns large parts of the earth brown, then what does overpopulation (the way we do things now) gonna matter?

its not sustainable to keep doing things the way we are... so its more important to not overpopulate, and keep doing things the way we have been?

Vitalux
13th August 2013, 20:34
so what if we hit an ice age, or the sun turns large parts of the earth brown, then what does overpopulation (the way we do things now) gonna matter?

its not sustainable to keep doing things the way we are... so its more important to not overpopulate, and keep doing things the way we have been?

Well .......we can choose not to worry about it, and enjoy living our lives.

In my opinion, there is an unseen cause of action that appears to cyclistically control the world's population .
This is really my point of this thread.

My guess is when Planet Earth has had enough of the human fleas, she ( or they) will give the planet a good shake and put us back in our place. :brushteeth:

Paul
13th August 2013, 21:08
In 20 years, the current world population will have TRIPLED. And by the middle of this century, the World Health Organization claims that there will be 9 billion people on our planet.
In 90 years from 1960 to 2050, the world population is projected to triple:

http://thepythoniccow.us/worldpop.png

(not in 20 years.)

ROMANWKT
13th August 2013, 21:17
so what if we hit an ice age, or the sun turns large parts of the earth brown, then what does overpopulation (the way we do things now) gonna matter?

its not sustainable to keep doing things the way we are... so its more important to not overpopulate, and keep doing things the way we have been?

Well .......we can choose not to worry about it, and enjoy living our lives.

In my opinion, there is an unseen cause of action that appears to cyclistically control the world's population .
This is really my point of this thread.

My guess is when Planet Earth has had enough of the human fleas, she ( or they) will give the planet a good shake and put us back in our place. :brushteeth:

Hi Vitalux

Now you're talking, because it most certainly looks like that, a regular culling session, as dumb as I am, what should the real figures be, or have I missed that in your calculation??

Regards

roman

What would the figures be population wise say from 12,000 /14,000 years, from the last world flood

Roisin
14th August 2013, 00:32
In 20 years, the current world population will have TRIPLED. And by the middle of this century, the World Health Organization claims that there will be 9 billion people on our planet.
In 90 years from 1960 to 2050, the world population is projected to triple:

http://thepythoniccow.us/worldpop.png

(not in 20 years.)

Thanks Paul! I was just echoing what I read somewhere wrt the world pop. tripling in 20 years.

But the chart you are showing indicates that the pop. will have tripled from 1960 to 2050 -- a 90 year period.

Thanks for correcting me on that and in fact I was waiting for someone to give different figures on that information too. Now I know what the true information on that is. thanks!

Vitalux
14th August 2013, 03:44
Hi Vitalux

Now you're talking, because it most certainly looks like that, a regular culling session, as dumb as I am, what should the real figures be, or have I missed that in your calculation??

Regards

roman

What would the figures be population wise say from 12,000 /14,000 years, from the last world flood

I don't know what overall factors caused population decline, perhaps it may have been a number of factors. It is hard to judge because since the beginning our history our true nature and history has been kept hidden from us.
Instead we have been fed that stuff that drops out of bulls from their rear ends. :painkiller:

From reading Worlds in Collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision) is a book written by Immanuel Velikovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision), as well as his many other books including Earth in upheaval
There certainly appears to be enough evidence in our recent past of huge losses of mammal life, severe changes in climate, changes in Earths orbit, and also changes in our polar alignment.

None of the upheavals appeared to be the result of human interaction but by the forces dealing with the nature of our universe, or so it would seem.

My current philosophy is that the universe we find ourselves in, is some kind of a computer generated simulation.
Who or what controls the computer is anyone's best guess.

Therefore, one can not really fix an illusion can we?

If we do fix it, it is still an illusion.

T Smith
14th August 2013, 06:12
I am by no means an authority on this issue, but it has my attention. My hunch is the notion of exponential population growth is patently incorrect, overly simplistic, and highly flawed. Just yesterday I came across the following essay:

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2012-04-03-debunking-limits-to-growth-inanities#.UgsVF7Sff-Z

I understand this runs counter to the conventional wisdom and to the bombardment of NWO propaganda that shapes our worldview. The conventional wisdom, while possibly flat out wrong, is also integral to and the justifying impetus of the broad social engineering agenda afoot by the PTB today. Eugenics, systematic culling of the masses, etc.

In any case, I'm not entirely convinced we have a firm grasp on all the forces that drive the equation of population growth.