What's Really Warming the World? Nice Bloomberg graph

[Arragonis]

*whether

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Net global population growth rate has reduced (slowed) to ~1/2 of the rate of growth it was .. including a ~30% increase in life expectancy over the same time period .. If not for the increased life expectancy .. the rate of growth would have been about ~1/4 of the rate is was previously .. this well documented slowing is progress in the correct direction.

I'll point out again that, while our rate of growth has been halved from what it was 50 years ago, our net growth in absolute numbers per year is still very close to the highest it's ever been, at more than 135 million humans/year. Expressing this growth as a rate of the total population is misleading, as that population is so much larger today than it was just a few decades ago that, despite maintaining the same absolute growth numbers, rate of growth will appear to slow unless we "ramp up production," so to speak.

Edit: my argument being that we have made no progress on controlling our population growth, which is clear when you look at absolute numbers rather than percentage growth rate.

[Xist]

Is there a way to /ignore threads? I would hate to click on this again and need to execute a palmface.

Heh. Maybe I should have asked elsewhere...

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Vman455

...Expressing this growth as a rate of the total population is misleading, as that population is so much larger today than it was just a few decades ago that, despite maintaining the same absolute growth numbers, rate of growth will appear to slow unless we "ramp up production," so to speak.

No, it is not misleading. Why ?

Question, what population did Malthus see as doom, and crucially why does he remain wrong?

[P-hack]

Binarily saying "malthus was wrong", you might as well say we will never have anything to worry about ever, because some technological miracle is just around the corner, and there will never be any limit or unintended consequences (perhaps catastrophic) to adoption. Unfortunately "malthus was wrong" is all folks can come up with in response. It is a set of blinders at best.

lets not forget about diminishing returns.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Vman455

Edit: my argument being that we have made no progress on controlling our population growth, which is clear when you look at absolute numbers rather than percentage growth rate.

You are welcome to look at it anyway you like.


If we agree or not.

I see a reduced % rate of growth as progress in the correction direction.

The absolute numbers rate you describe is only a larger magnitude (same direction) rate of reduced % growth rate .. for any size population.

% growth rate = absolute number gain / total population

For Example:
100 @ 1% growth rate = 101 = gain of absolute +1
101 @ (1/101)% growth rate = 102 = gain of same absolute +1
102 @ (1/102)% growth rate = 103 = gain of same absolute +1
etc ... etc...

100 @ 10% growth rate = 110 = gain of absolute +10
110 @ (10/110)% growth rate = gain of same absolute +10
etc ... etc.

Same thing give you what you describe for any size population .. or any magnitude of rate of (absolute growth)

For the rate of % growth to be at this rate of reducing you ask for ... the total net today of about 1/3 the previous % growth rate .. instead of the ~1/2 previous % growth rate we did ... ie you want 'faster progress' in order to reach the rate of progress you want to call progress.

Ironically ... without the ~30% increased life expectancy .. we would have reduced the % growth rate faster and further to 1/4 .. more progress than the rate of % growth reduction you are asking for (1/3).

[P-hack]

"progress" seems like a strange term to color things with. Progress towards what exactly?

[Arragonis]

Why is it misleading ?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by IamIan

progress in the correction direction.

Originally Posted by P-hack

"progress" seems like a strange term to color things with. Progress towards what exactly?

Progress toward sustainable human population correction.

1st step of progress toward that is to reduce the rate of acceleration in the 'wrong' direction .. which is exactly what we have been doing.

We have to define what direction of this % growth rate is 'correct' or 'wrong' direction.

% growth rate has only 3 possibilities.

#1> Reduce

#2> Stay the same

#3> Increase

I say #1 is the correct direction = direction of Progress .. The other directions 2 or 3 that would be the 'wrong' direction and thus not the direction of progress.

As I've said before.

Originally Posted by IamIan

Weather it is a 'fast enough' rate of progress .. or weather this type of progress will continue 'long enough' ... only time will tell.

Those other two questions (fast enough, long enough) , are asking details about the magnitude and duration of this direction of progress.

- - - - -

If you want fewer total number of people .. the 1st step of progress toward that would still be to reduce the rate of +% growth .. ie you have to slow down 1st before you can go in reverse.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by IamIan

If you want fewer total number of people

What I want, or what you want, and what everyone else wants, are very different things.