Exponential Population Growth

[utunumsint]

I was checking out a website called overpopulation. something or other. I found this video from David Suzuki, and I was wondering what people think? You have to enter something to start the presentation, but you can just add any garbledegoop.

interactive.nfb.ca/#/testtube

The idea is that bacterial in a testube experiences exponential growth, and the conclusion is that they eat up the entire food supply, even though just one generation before they still had half their food supply left. So given 60 minutes to track each generation, at 59 minutes, you would still have half of your food supply left. David makes the ominous statement that the human population is at the 59th minute right now!!!

The idea seems to be to compare human growth rates to bacterial growth rates. After the video, you can click on a link that indicates that 40 years ago, the world population was 4 Billion. Now it is 7 Billion.

There seems to be a couple of things wrong with this idea, but I’ll open up the floor to anyone else before posting my thoughts.

God bless,
Ut

 

[SonCatcher]

first issue is that we are getting so much better at producing food. With fewer people in farming, the rate of production has increased faster than the population growth. The only “problem” is, and always has been, ensuring everyone has access to food.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

even now the world population would fit in area the siz of Texas. over-population is a myth. what we have is really bad managment.

 

[WFS5801]

There seems to be a couple of things wrong with this idea, but I’ll open up the floor to anyone else before posting my thoughts.

Countries like Australia and Germany are paying parents to have more children because birth rates are below replacement level. Most of the world’s countries now have births below replacement levels.

Here’s an outfit who’s job seems to be debunking the overpopulation myth:

overpopulationisamyth.com/2-point-1-kids-a-stable-population

They have a whole series of videos at YouTube:

[youtube.com/user/Col(name removed by moderator)ri1](http://www.youtube.com/user/Col(name removed by moderator)ri1)

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks for all your responses. I’ve listened to most of the PRI youtube presentations. They are fairly convincing.

I’m just wondering how David Suzuki can make his testube analogy in good conscience? If human beings were growing exponentially, you would expect that population would be doubling each year. For example, if 40 years ago, the human population was 4 Billion, then 39 years ago, the human population should have been 8 Billion, 38 years should be 16 Billion, 37 years should be 32 Billion, etc… But it is not, because human beings to not grow exponentially.

Or have I missed something? I’ve never been good at math…

God bless,
Ut

 

[PatrickSebast]

Thanks for all your responses. I’ve listened to most of the PRI youtube presentations. They are fairly convincing.

I’m just wondering how David Suzuki can make his testube analogy in good conscience? If human beings were growing exponentially, you would expect that population would be doubling each year. For example, if 40 years ago, the human population was 4 Billion, then 39 years ago, the human population should have been 8 Billion, 38 years should be 16 Billion, 37 years should be 32 Billion, etc… But it is not, because human beings to not grow exponentially.

Or have I missed something? I’ve never been good at math…

God bless,
Ut

Exponential growth doesn’t require doubling every year, it just requires a multiplicative increase every generation. The term just means that the number of people we are adding to the total population keeps growing. So maybe the last generation involved a net gain of 500 million people, and now the new one will have a gain of 750 million and then the next 1.125 billion. That would still be an exponential growth. The point is that the numbers are growing faster and faster over time.

With that said I don’t think it is really the concern people make it out to be. As societies and technologies develop it has been repeatedly shown that population growth slows. Where a child used to be seen as a clear use and benefit in the form of additional labor they are now an expense since being an active member of society requires far more training and education.

 

[utunumsint]

That explains things then. Thanks PatrickSebast.

That said, David’s Suzuki’s analogy seems flawed, in that Bacteria does double itself every minute. It gives one the impression that humanity is on the brink of a total population meltdown.

There was another video I watched from this overpopulation web page that seemed interetesting. It is the idea that the only reason human population can go beyond 1 Billion is because of fossil fuels. Since they believe we have already hit peak fuel consumption, we will no longer be able to run these huge cities, like New York, and starvation will ensue, mass chaos, bears hugging hamsters, etc…

Any thoughts on this one?

God bless,
Ut

 

[po18guy]

Thanks for all your responses. I’ve listened to most of the PRI youtube presentations. They are fairly convincing.

I’m just wondering how David Suzuki can make his testube analogy in good conscience? If human beings were growing exponentially, you would expect that population would be doubling each year. For example, if 40 years ago, the human population was 4 Billion, then 39 years ago, the human population should have been 8 Billion, 38 years should be 16 Billion, 37 years should be 32 Billion, etc… But it is not, because human beings to not grow exponentially.

Or have I missed something? I’ve never been good at math…

God bless,
Ut

He is making a false analogy. Bacteria multiply asexually according to their genetically pre-programed rate and availability of the environment and energy needed to reproduce. And, all living bacteria are active multipliers. In stark contrast, humans reproduce sexually at a human gestation rate, as well as voluntarily. Also, only 50% of humans actually produce other humans. As well, there are many within that 50% population who do not reproduce, being pre-pubescent, celibate, or post-menopausal. Where is he observing this bacteria-human reproductive analogy, a college campus???

 

[po18guy]

Thanks for all your responses. I’ve listened to most of the PRI youtube presentations. They are fairly convincing.

I’m just wondering how David Suzuki can make his testube analogy in good conscience? If human beings were growing exponentially, you would expect that population would be doubling each year. For example, if 40 years ago, the human population was 4 Billion, then 39 years ago, the human population should have been 8 Billion, 38 years should be 16 Billion, 37 years should be 32 Billion, etc… But it is not, because human beings to not grow exponentially.

Or have I missed something? I’ve never been good at math…

God bless,
Ut

He is making a false analogy. Bacteria multiply asexually according to their genetically pre-programed rate and availability of the environment and energy needed to reproduce. And, all living bacteria are active multipliers. In stark contrast, humans reproduce sexually at a comparatively glacial human gestation rate, as well as voluntarily. Also, only 50% of humans actually produce other humans. As well, there are many within that 50% population who do not reproduce, being pre-pubescent, celibate, or post-menopausal. Where is he observing this bacteria-human reproductive analogy, a college campus???

 

[Warrior1979]

There was another video I watched from this overpopulation web page that seemed interetesting. It is the idea that the only reason human population can go beyond 1 Billion is because of fossil fuels. Since they believe we have already hit peak fuel consumption, we will no longer be able to run these huge cities, like New York, and starvation will ensue, mass chaos, bears hugging hamsters, etc…

Any thoughts on this one?

God bless,
Ut

I haven’t calculated the actual numbers, but this line of reasoning is correct. The current level of population is only sustainable through an intense use of resources. That resource is a cheaply obtainable energy source stored over millennia. Agriculture is very dependent on petroleum products; everything from pesticides to the production of machines to harvest. Eventually the population will settle back at a level appropriate for hunter gatherers, barring some miracle.

I’m greatly oversimplifying the answer; I don’t want to bore everyone with entropy and other thermodynamic principles.

 

[utunumsint]

He is making a false analogy. Bacteria multiply asexually according to their genetically pre-programed rate and availability of the environment and energy needed to reproduce. And, all living bacteria are active multipliers. In stark contrast, humans reproduce sexually at a comparatively glacial human gestation rate, as well as voluntarily. Also, only 50% of humans actually produce other humans. As well, there are many within that 50% population who do not reproduce, being pre-pubescent, celibate, or post-menopausal. Where is he observing this bacteria-human reproductive analogy, a college campus???

Agreed. A smart guy like that should be ashamed of such claims. It is simply fear mongering.

God bless,
Ut

 

[GEddie]

I haven’t calculated the actual numbers, but this line of reasoning is correct. The current level of population is only sustainable through an intense use of resources. That resource is a cheaply obtainable energy source stored over millennia. Agriculture is very dependent on petroleum products; everything from pesticides to the production of machines to harvest. Eventually the population will settle back at a level appropriate for hunter gatherers, barring some miracle.

I’m greatly oversimplifying the answer; I don’t want to bore everyone with entropy and other thermodynamic principles.

It wouldn’t settle back, it would crash back, if that were the prospect. WW3, and all that.

And the final position would not necessarily be hunter-gathering. The Roman Empire had a high level of civilization, despite using no non-sustainable resources.

But there is no need for such a decline. The population bomb is already fizzling. Population predictions for this point in time were higher than the eventuality. Ultimately, there will be an inflection point, and the population will flatten out on its own.

ICXC NIKA

 

[utunumsint]

I haven’t calculated the actual numbers, but this line of reasoning is correct. The current level of population is only sustainable through an intense use of resources. That resource is a cheaply obtainable energy source stored over millennia. Agriculture is very dependent on petroleum products; everything from pesticides to the production of machines to harvest. Eventually the population will settle back at a level appropriate for hunter gatherers, barring some miracle.

I’m greatly oversimplifying the answer; I don’t want to bore everyone with entropy and other thermodynamic principles.

Scary thought. I suppose the hopeful alternative is that we somehow find some better alternatives? For example, renewable energy? Solar stuff. Some kind of dilithium crystals?

God bless,
Ut

 

[GEddie]

Scary thought. I suppose the hopeful alternative is that we somehow find some better alternatives? For example, renewable energy? Solar stuff. Some kind of dilithium crystals?

God bless,
Ut

Step 1: Ship all the environmentalists to Antarctica;

Step 2: Drill, baby, drill.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

(The above intended as a joke)

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[Warrior1979]

And the final position would not necessarily be hunter-gathering. The Roman Empire had a high level of civilization, despite using no non-sustainable resources.

The high level of civilization was due to the availability of resources. One of the reasons Rome fell is due to economics, which is directly linked to resources. Once the resources become scarce, the economy declines, and populace becomes discontent.

But there is no need for such a decline. The population bomb is already fizzling. Population predictions for this point in time were higher than the eventuality.

The predictions are based on certain assumptions. If those assumptions change, so does the outcome.

 

[Warrior1979]

Scary thought. I suppose the hopeful alternative is that we somehow find some better alternatives? For example, renewable energy? Solar stuff. Some kind of dilithium crystals?

God bless,
Ut

Renewable energy, such as solar, wind, and water, will eventually be the main energy sources used. Unfortunately, it is not a substitute for dense energy sources created over a long time, such as oil and coal.

 

[Ignatius]

I was checking out a website called overpopulation. something or other. I found this video from David Suzuki, and I was wondering what people think?

Bacteria are incapable of inventing new sources of food, increasing the productivity of food production, and turning deserts and other areas into arable land as are human beings.

Also, it should be noted that Europe, US, Canada, Austrailia, Russia, Japan and many nations have dropped below the sustainment level and will not have sufficient population to provide enough doctors, police, etc for their people.
Give this a look.
youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

(The above intended as a joke)

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

I don’t know. sending the enviromentalist to antartica maybe a good starting point.

 

[utunumsint]

You know, one I had this one idea, and it is probably crazy, but we waste so much energy in gyms and excercising that we could be harnessing. If we could hook up every excersise bike to the power grid, I’m wondering how much energy, for example, 10% of the population of the plannet could generate at one time?

Its kind of like the Matrix, only good for us too. With this idea, population itself would become the renewable resource.

God bless,
Ut