The elephant in the room; population

Grizzly Mouse · Post by **Grizzly Mouse** » 25 Jul 2010, 12:09

No that is definitely not a noble idea just plain old treason. To invite in all potential enemies and sacrifice all your friends and family in a Malthusian catastrophe of epic proportions can only be the result of a petty and depraved morality.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 25 Jul 2010, 16:48

This graph tells it all, there will be a die of of Hitlerian proportions within the next hundred years.

if you assume that the decline will roughly correspond with the rise in population and that the peak in world population will be about 7 billion at 2012 which corresponds around the overall timeframe of peak oil, than the population die-off would be the following.

2012-2020 - 1bn die off 6 billion people

2020-2030 - 1 bn die of - 5 billion people in the world

So, between around now and 2030 (my date for end of industrial civilisation, world population will peak at 7 bn and come down over 2 decade period by 2 billion.

2030 - 2040 - 1 bn die-off 4 billion people

2040 - 2050 - 600 million die of 3.4 billion people

2050- 2080 - 1 bn die over 3 decades

2080 - onwards gradual decline to around a billion people.

Any thoughts? Maybe some of the 2012-2030 die-off may be postponed which could increase the death-rate going from 2030 onwards, before levelling of around 2050 and maybe a second die-off as the remaining resources are used up in the second half of this century, leading to secondary die-of and eventualy stabilisiation of around a 1 billion, which was the overall population before widespread use of coal, around 2100.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:15

Funny graph. What's the 'Flood' label about?

contadino · Post by **contadino** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:17

biffvernon wrote:Funny graph. What's the 'Flood' label about?

That'll be when the God of Daily Mail Readers smote Google News users by flooding the whole world, saving only Noah & Nelly.

I never really understood how the gene pool recovered from that. More magic, I guess.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:37

Beria3 wrote:Any thoughts?

Yeah, try watching some Black Adder or Red Dwarf or Bottom or something else a bit light-hearted.

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 25 Jul 2010, 18:38

contadino wrote:That'll be when the God of Daily Mail Readers smote Google News users by flooding the whole world, saving only Noah & Nelly.

Haha, "All aboard the Skylark!" Since Daily Mail readers can't distinguish fantasy from reality, it might as well be Noah & Nelly.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 25 Jul 2010, 20:56

At least their 3 sons took their wives on board. What's always puzzled me is, who bore Cain-and-Abel's children? Monkeys??

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 25 Jul 2010, 22:40

Come off it RC, you don't think that the women ever deserved a mention in The Old Fable unless it was strictly required for the plot, do you?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 25 Jul 2010, 23:03

No, but in this case Begetting was most definitely central to the plot! C'mon Lynesian you're the expert...

caspian · Post by **caspian** » 26 Jul 2010, 10:02

RenewableCandy wrote:At least their 3 sons took their wives on board. What's always puzzled me is, who bore Cain-and-Abel's children? Monkeys??

Ah, the mystery of Cain's wife - a classic! I've never heard a Christian answer it satisfactorily. There are only two plausible answers: (1) Cain's wife came from a pre-Adamite sect not mentioned in the Bible, or (2) Cain and his wife were brother and sister. Now, (1) is unacceptable (at least to fundamentalist Christians) because it implies that Adam was not the original man (gasp!). (2) is totally unacceptable because it would mean that all of humankind is the product of incest. Hobson's Choice, really, which is why you'll never hear a Christian who's happy to discuss it. Most are probably unaware of the paradox anyway.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 26 Jul 2010, 11:28

When I was at primary school such paradoxes were dismissed as 'a mystery'. It was a perfectly satisfactory explanation for a child pre the Age of Reason.

Then I grew up.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 26 Jul 2010, 12:21

My severn year old keeps asking me who was the first human? All I can come up with is saying it is a difficult question because she is not ready for the finer points of evolution theory.

Then the other half sends her to the local free summer school where they say he was called Adam...

Post by **clv101** » 26 Jul 2010, 12:24

Beria3 wrote:http://atechworld.com/photo/misc/population_graph.gif

This graph tells it all, there will be a die of of Hitlerian proportions within the next hundred years.

No, the graph doesn't tell that, it's history, it doesn't cover the next hundred years.

if you assume that the decline will roughly correspond with the rise in population...

There is no justification I see to make such a wild assumption! Why should it be so?

...and that the peak in world population will be about 7 billion at 2012...

That's fairly unlikely, very unlikely. The high birthrates are with the poorest 2bn, where there are now more young girls in the generation than the last. The population can't peak in in 2012, first the birth rate must fall, the peak will follow a generation later.

...which corresponds around the overall timeframe of peak oil, than the population die-off would be the following.

I don't see how the overall timeframe of peak oil will dramatically affect birthrates/child mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa for example?

Any thoughts?

The only way to do this is country by county, is starting with the current population pyramid, projecting forward based on the evolution of fertility rates, child mortality rates and life expectancy. You haven't done this and as a result produced something ridiculous in my opinion.

Have you see the five TED Talks by Hans Rosling? I'd recommend them to you - he understands population dynamics.

Adam Polczyk · Post by **Adam Polczyk** » 26 Jul 2010, 12:37

I assume you are all familiar with Al Bartlett's talk on Population, Energy and Arithmetic?

Post by **clv101** » 26 Jul 2010, 12:44

Adam Polczyk wrote:I assume you are all familiar with Al Bartlett's talk on Population, Energy and Arithmetic?

Indeed - also note that the chart posted above isn't exponential growth. Exponential growth curves don't have kinks in them - they look identical over any period you consider. Human population doesn't do that.