Population growth vs resources | Malthus

[Farcus]

Because population isn't increasing geometrically. Not for the past 10, maybe 20 years. Check the global stats.
Human population went from 5-6 billion, an increase of 20%, in, if I recall, about 12 years. 6-7 billion, an increase of only 16.7%, took over 15 years. 17 years if I recall correctly. The rate of increase is slowing, and has been for a while. Reasons? China one child is one factor. Another is cultural - as developing world develops, populations become more urbanized, and families smaller.

More rates while simply not addressing the number of mouths? The religious need to abstract to sidestep the main thrust.

Maybe it would help if framed population as a discussion of compound interest?

Again, compound interest would not be relevant because world population stopped growing exponentially a few decades ago. Inflection point. Curve went from concave up to concave down.
You need graphs with better resolution. The curve is no longer exponential. It is becoming s-shaped.

No it's not. And you are still talking about rates of return on currently 7 billion in principal vs less than 1/2 that 50 years ago. Somehow, the principal keeps accruing rapidly and can be predicted to continue to accrue. This more and more rapidly because the rates are compounding on ever increasing principal.

It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012
According to current projections, the global population will reach eight billion by 2030, and will likely reach around nine billion by 2050.

Wiki

Contrast with food production, which cannot be confidently projected to accumulate at equal rates. And, as MG noted, depletes nonrenewable components of carrying capacity.

[noddy]

this is the perfect example of "snot the end of the world, its just the end of you" because in the global long term humanity will keep on chugging with innovation, in localised short terms malthus is as real as he ever was.

all the starving people from overpopulated third world countries dont give a hoot about pretty long term graphs and nor the do the fat over indulged middle class ladies bashing each other during the boxing day sales for half price beauty products.

[Taboo]

We're All Gonna Politely Agree Not To Multiply?

People may not be polite, but they respond to incentives.

In a preindustrial agricultural society, children could begin to "return on investment" within years of being born, and absent industrial welfare regimes, were the only "retirement" option. No kids for the average person meant that when you got too old to work, you starved to death. Not only that, but high child mortality rates meant that you had to have a few children to make sure at least one or two survive to take care of you when you're old.

In the rich industrial world, there are pensions and medical care for the elderly, retirement homes and the like. In addition, the net cost to raise a 2010 U.S. newborn to age 18 is about $225,000. That's excluding the costs of college, which vary by country. This is an investment that, cute cuddly smiles aside, will not pay off for decades, if at all.

People respond to incentives, that's all. If having a kid costs 250k, not many people will have a dozen of them. Few in fact will be able to afford having more than 2.

[anderson]

Because population isn't increasing geometrically. Not for the past 10, maybe 20 years. Check the global stats.
Human population went from 5-6 billion, an increase of 20%, in, if I recall, about 12 years. 6-7 billion, an increase of only 16.7%, took over 15 years. 17 years if I recall correctly. The rate of increase is slowing, and has been for a while. Reasons? China one child is one factor. Another is cultural - as developing world develops, populations become more urbanized, and families smaller.

More rates while simply not addressing the number of mouths? The religious need to abstract to sidestep the main thrust.

Maybe it would help if framed population as a discussion of compound interest?

Again, compound interest would not be relevant because world population stopped growing exponentially a few decades ago. Inflection point. Curve went from concave up to concave down.
You need graphs with better resolution. The curve is no longer exponential. It is becoming s-shaped.

No it's not. And you are still talking about rates of return on currently 7 billion in principal vs less than 1/2 that 50 years ago. Somehow, the principal keeps accruing rapidly and can be predicted to continue to accrue. This more and more rapidly because the rates are compounding on ever increasing principal.

It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012
According to current projections, the global population will reach eight billion by 2030, and will likely reach around nine billion by 2050.

Wiki

Contrast with food production, which cannot be confidently projected to accumulate at equal rates. And, as MG noted, depletes nonrenewable components of carrying capacity.

Pop growth interest rates are trending steadily down, however, for some time. That is the point. Your quote confirms it. Check it. Math is your friend:

Pop change (billions) | Years range | %pop change | #years | Average %change = %pop change / # years
2->3 | 1927-60 | 50 | 33 | 50%/33 yr =1.5%/yr
3->4 | 1960-74 | 33 | 14 | 33%/14 yr =2.35%/yr
4->5 | 1974-87 | 25 | 13 | 25%/13 yr = 1.9%/yr
5->6 | 1987-99 | 20 | 12 | 20%/12 yr = 1.67%/yr
6->7 | 1999-2012 | 16.7 | 13 | 16.7%/13 yr = 1.28%/yr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7->8 | 2012-30 | 14.3 | 18 | 14.3%/18 yr = 0.78%/yr
8->9 | 2030-50 | 12.5 | 20 | 12.5%/20 yr = 0.625% / yr

(Sorry about the readability; thought the editor was WYSIWYG in terms of respecting spaces for the columns.)

Yeah, I think we can manage to increase the food supply by a little under 1% a year.

[Typhoon]

this is the perfect example of "snot the end of the world, its just the end of you" because in the global long term humanity will keep on chugging with innovation, in localised short terms malthus is as real as he ever was.

all the starving people from overpopulated third world countries dont give a hoot about pretty long term graphs and nor the do the fat over indulged middle class ladies bashing each other during the boxing day sales for half price beauty products.

The solution, which is also fortunately the trend, is to turn those starving people into "fat over indulged middle class ladies bashing each other during the boxing day sales for half price beauty products".

[Typhoon]

this is the perfect example of "snot the end of the world, its just the end of you" because in the global long term humanity will keep on chugging with innovation, in localised short terms malthus is as real as he ever was.

all the starving people from overpopulated third world countries dont give a hoot about pretty long term graphs and nor the do the fat over indulged middle class ladies bashing each other during the boxing day sales for half price beauty products.

People who are tragically starving today are not starving due to a scarcity of resources, but due politics, war, stupid economic policies, and other human factors.

The solution, which is also fortunately the trend, is to turn those starving people into "fat over indulged middle class ladies bashing each other during the boxing day sales for half price beauty products".

[Farcus]

Because population isn't increasing geometrically. Not for the past 10, maybe 20 years. Check the global stats.
Human population went from 5-6 billion, an increase of 20%, in, if I recall, about 12 years. 6-7 billion, an increase of only 16.7%, took over 15 years. 17 years if I recall correctly. The rate of increase is slowing, and has been for a while. Reasons? China one child is one factor. Another is cultural - as developing world develops, populations become more urbanized, and families smaller.

More rates while simply not addressing the number of mouths? The religious need to abstract to sidestep the main thrust.

Maybe it would help if framed population as a discussion of compound interest?

Again, compound interest would not be relevant because world population stopped growing exponentially a few decades ago. Inflection point. Curve went from concave up to concave down.
You need graphs with better resolution. The curve is no longer exponential. It is becoming s-shaped.

No it's not. And you are still talking about rates of return on currently 7 billion in principal vs less than 1/2 that 50 years ago. Somehow, the principal keeps accruing rapidly and can be predicted to continue to accrue. This more and more rapidly because the rates are compounding on ever increasing principal.

It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012
According to current projections, the global population will reach eight billion by 2030, and will likely reach around nine billion by 2050.

Wiki

Contrast with food production, which cannot be confidently projected to accumulate at equal rates. And, as MG noted, depletes nonrenewable components of carrying capacity.

Pop growth interest rates are trending steadily down, however, for some time. That is the point. Your quote confirms it. Check it. Math is your friend:

Code: Select all

Pop change (billions)  |  Years range   |  %pop change   |  #years   |  Average %change = %pop change / # years
      2->3                    | 1927-60         |        50            |     33       |   50%/33 yr =1.5%/yr
      3->4                    | 1960-74         |        33            |     14       |   33%/14 yr =2.35%/yr
      4->5                    | 1974-87         |        25            |     13       |   25%/13 yr = 1.9%/yr
      5->6                    | 1987-99         |        20            |     12       |   20%/12 yr = 1.67%/yr
      6->7                    | 1999-2012     |        16.7          |     13       |   16.7%/13 yr = 1.28%/yr
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      7->8                    | 2012-30        |        14.3           |     18       |  14.3%/18 yr = 0.78%/yr
      8->9                    | 2030-50        |        12.5           |     20       |  12.5%/20 yr = 0.625% / yr

(Sorry about the readability; thought the editor was WYSIWYG in terms of respecting spaces for the columns.)

Yeah, I think we can manage to increase the food supply by a little under 1% a year.

Looks fine. Thanks for the work. I put it in

Code: Select all

 markup so it would format properly in a quote. Helped a little.

Rates are represented as parts of principal. Rates may well be trending down, no general argument from me as rates are (roughly) compounded anually. But human population is trending up, though not as sharply as the 200 years previously.

I'm talking about the forest, not just the new trees.


China 1 Child,  is but one of many politically imposed Malthusian [i]check[s] on population[/i] in the last century. Citing the C1C as at least partly responsible for flattening the human population trend confirms rather than refutes Malthus:


[b]"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man.

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio ... By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal power must be kept equal [to maintain population]. This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence."[/b]

[noddy]

this is the perfect example of "snot the end of the world, its just the end of you" because in the global long term humanity will keep on chugging with innovation, in localised short terms malthus is as real as he ever was.

all the starving people from overpopulated third world countries dont give a hoot about pretty long term graphs and nor the do the fat over indulged middle class ladies bashing each other during the boxing day sales for half price beauty products.

People who are tragically starving today are not starving due to a scarcity of resources, but due politics, war, stupid economic policies, and other human factors.

The solution, which is also fortunately the trend, is to turn those starving people into "fat over indulged middle class ladies bashing each other during the boxing day sales for half price beauty products".

well, this seems to me to be a knee jerk stance against the doom n gloom malthusians who argue we are already at some enforced limit and deny furthur innovation and equally as suspect to me.

you want to include all the "special" human traits that allow us to innovate technicallly and culturally out of food shortages but you dont want to acknowledge the other human traits aka "politics, war, stupid economic policies, and ..." which is what i was getting at with my fat ladies getting all malthus about 50% post christmas sales, they have literally killed for em in the stampedes

horses and carts, the horse is the innovation and the cart is the population so when the cart gets infront of the horse then in the local small picture the people starve and die and those periods are the flat spots on your graphs as our population stablises

exactly what happens in africa and central asia right now because of ratios of food to mouths and will continue to do so unless/until they go industrial post modern.

its not doom n gloom for humanity, its just what happens when an area hits the limits of the food available for whatever reasons and something that industrialised middle class people cant remember - however they are only a small percentage of the world so feh, they can be ignored, they arent the magority of humanity.

the rest believe in malthus and self limit their fecundity when too many kids are dying from starvation, or as the farcus pointed out, china trying to avoid that by authoritarian limiting it.

we are only a bit different to wild animals in the sense their boom times come from external factors and ours come from innovations but the innovations dont just happen on demand - queue arguments about government funded innovations to replace the lost industrial production and how thats working out

it is just a small picture (you) versus big picture (humanity) discussion i think and in the small picture malthus is real for any place at any point in time and long term predictions that everyone on the planet will end up middle class and too busy to have children are spenglermatic future sniffing.

[Typhoon]

Going back to the source: Malthusian catastrophe

A Malthusian catastrophe (also known as Malthusian check) was originally foreseen to be a forced return to subsistence-level conditions once population growth had outpaced agricultural production.

In 1798, Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population, in which he wrote:

The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

— Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Chapter VII, p61

So, while taking war and pandemics into account, Malthus was mainly concerned population growth exceeding available food.

However,

The passion between the sexes has appeared in every age to be so nearly the same that it may always be considered, in algebraic language, as a given quantity. The great law of necessity which prevents population from increasing in any country beyond the food which it can either produce or acquire, is a law so open to our view...that we cannot for a moment doubt it. The different modes which nature takes to prevent or repress a redundant population do not appear, indeed, to us so certain and regular, but though we cannot always predict the mode we may with certainty predict the fact.

— Malthus T.R., 1798, Chapter IV

As with the social Darwinists and Darwin, it is the neo Malthusians, such as the perma-doomster Paul Ehrlich and his ilk, that have wildly extrapolated on Mathus' original hypothesis and have been predicting the imminent starvation of billions. They still do despite having been dead wrong for decades.

[Simple Minded]

this is the perfect example of "snot the end of the world, its just the end of you" because in the global long term humanity will keep on chugging with innovation, in localised short terms malthus is as real as he ever was.

all the starving people from overpopulated third world countries dont give a hoot about pretty long term graphs and nor the do the fat over indulged middle class ladies bashing each other during the boxing day sales for half price beauty products.

The solution, which is also fortunately the trend, is to turn those starving people into "fat over indulged middle class ladies bashing each other during the boxing day sales for half price beauty products".

good observations, unfortunately, not a very viable solution for the long term... luckily, in the long run, we're all dead!

Survival of the fatest.... at least until the Zombies show up or the Soylent Green plants start up.... Humanity as a renewal resource...... hmmm.....

ya know...... its a jungle out there.....

[Simple Minded]

As with the social Darwinists and Darwin, it is the neo Malthusians, such as the perma-doomster Paul Ehrlich and his ilk, that have wildly extrapolated on Mathus' original hypothesis and have been predicting the imminent starvation of billions. They still do despite having been dead wrong for decades.

The solution to not predicting well, is to predict often. There is always someone out there who did not read the original thesis.....

[Typhoon]

As with the social Darwinists and Darwin, it is the neo Malthusians, such as the perma-doomster Paul Ehrlich and his ilk, that have wildly extrapolated on Mathus' original hypothesis and have been predicting the imminent starvation of billions. They still do despite having been dead wrong for decades.

The solution to not predicting well, is to predict often. There is always someone out there who did not read the original thesis.....

TED | Global health stats and demographics

[Azrael]

Population growth is hard to predict. Global population growth has declined since 2000 (according to table in linked site), as has implied "doubling rate" of population.

Increasing access to safe and affordable birth control is still very important, of course; especially in areas with extreme poverty.

Birth rates seem to be mostly correlated with the probability of infant survival into childhood and adulthood.

Regions of extreme poverty with high infant mortality will continue to have lots of kids even if one rains contraceptive pills out of planes.

They'd still have lots of kids relative to more affluent areas of the world, but it should lower the number enough to increase per capita income somewhat, which should increase child survival rates and lower births further -- a virtuous cycle.

Raise the standard of living to industrialized world standards and the problem will quickly become one of too few births.

Indeed.

[Farcus]

As with the social Darwinists and Darwin, it is the neo Malthusians, such as the perma-doomster Paul Ehrlich and his ilk, that have wildly extrapolated on Mathus' original hypothesis and have been predicting the imminent starvation of billions. They still do despite having been dead wrong for decades.

The solution to not predicting well, is to predict often. There is always someone out there who did not read the original thesis.....

TED | Global health stats and demographics

I thought we were talking about Malthus here, rather than some hilarity in diet books or some other popular media?

The Theory of Natural Selection is after Malthus, and seems to work pretty well so far. "Social Darwinism" is something from the political philosophy of Herbert Spencer, and is not related to this topic.

You may have an Idealistic need to disagree with Darwin, but that's on you. Natural Selection explains things, and the mechanism of Natural Selection is Malthusian population response.

[Farcus]

Raise the standard of living to industrialized world standards and the problem will quickly become one of too few births.

Indeed.

Too few births for what?

Raise the [3rd World] standard of living to industrialized world standards

Nontrivial.

[Typhoon]

As with the social Darwinists and Darwin, it is the neo Malthusians, such as the perma-doomster Paul Ehrlich and his ilk, that have wildly extrapolated on Mathus' original hypothesis and have been predicting the imminent starvation of billions. They still do despite having been dead wrong for decades.

The solution to not predicting well, is to predict often. There is always someone out there who did not read the original thesis.....

TED | Global health stats and demographics

I thought we were talking about Malthus here, rather than some hilarity in diet books or some other popular media?

?

The Theory of Natural Selection is after Malthus, and seems to work pretty well so far. "Social Darwinism" is something from the political philosophy of Herbert Spencer, and is not related to this topic.

You may have an Idealistic need to disagree with Darwin, but that's on you. Natural Selection explains things, and the mechanism of Natural Selection is Malthusian population response.

You seem to have me mistaken for someone else - I'm not arguing against Darwinian natural selection.

[Enki]

Raise the standard of living to industrialized world standards and the problem will quickly become one of too few births.

Indeed.

Too few births for what?

Raise the [3rd World] standard of living to industrialized world standards

Nontrivial.

Proper roads and telecom infrastructure would bring about a rennaissance in any country. There are many other factors like access to education and medicine, but infrastructure bottom lines it all.

[Farcus]

As with the social Darwinists and Darwin, it is the neo Malthusians, such as the perma-doomster Paul Ehrlich and his ilk, that have wildly extrapolated on Mathus' original hypothesis and have been predicting the imminent starvation of billions. They still do despite having been dead wrong for decades.

The solution to not predicting well, is to predict often. There is always someone out there who did not read the original thesis.....

TED | Global health stats and demographics

I thought we were talking about Malthus here, rather than some hilarity in diet books or some other popular media?

?

You may have alluded to "Paul Ehrlich and his ilk" in the popular press {of 45 years ago} to confirm my point that major advances in food production are not particularly predictable? Because if not, it sure looks like a discussion of recent popular media instead of Malthus, who you now seem to agree with in principle. Which is why I asked.

The Theory of Natural Selection is after Malthus, and seems to work pretty well so far. "Social Darwinism" is something from the political philosophy of Herbert Spencer, and is not related to this topic.

One may have an Idealistic need to disagree with Darwin, but that's on himself. Natural Selection explains things, and the mechanism of Natural Selection is Malthusian population response.

You seem to have me mistaken for someone else - I'm not arguing against Darwinian natural selection.

Fixed the pronoun here to make the statement general. Lots of good science has been done "after Malthus".

[Farcus]

Raise the standard of living to industrialized world standards and the problem will quickly become one of too few births.

Indeed.

Too few births for what?

Raise the [3rd World] standard of living to industrialized world standards

Nontrivial.

Proper roads and telecom infrastructure would bring about a rennaissance in any country. There are many other factors like access to education and medicine, but infrastructure bottom lines it all.

And First World infrastructure is nontrivial as well. There may not enough petroleum to replicate it in the Third.

[Azrael]

We're All Gonna Politely Agree Not To Multiply?

People may not be polite, but they respond to incentives.

In a preindustrial agricultural society, children could begin to "return on investment" within years of being born, and absent industrial welfare regimes, were the only "retirement" option. No kids for the average person meant that when you got too old to work, you starved to death. Not only that, but high child mortality rates meant that you had to have a few children to make sure at least one or two survive to take care of you when you're old.

In the rich industrial world, there are pensions and medical care for the elderly, retirement homes and the like. In addition, the net cost to raise a 2010 U.S. newborn to age 18 is about $225,000. That's excluding the costs of college, which vary by country. This is an investment that, cute cuddly smiles aside, will not pay off for decades, if at all.

People respond to incentives, that's all. If having a kid costs 250k, not many people will have a dozen of them. Few in fact will be able to afford having more than 2.

You'd make a great economist. Of course, it's easy for me to say that since I agree with you.

Another factor is that, in modern, high income societies, children can be considered a consumption good: parents sometimes enjoy their antics, are proud of their glorious progeny, etc.

This particular consumption good requires money and a lot of time. When a society gets wealthier, people have other options to consume their time. That's also an explanation of why New Yorkers seem rude to people from areas with less entertainment options.

[Farcus]

We're All Gonna Politely Agree Not To Multiply?

People may not be polite, but they respond to incentives.

In a preindustrial agricultural society, children could begin to "return on investment" within years of being born, and absent industrial welfare regimes, were the only "retirement" option. No kids for the average person meant that when you got too old to work, you starved to death. Not only that, but high child mortality rates meant that you had to have a few children to make sure at least one or two survive to take care of you when you're old.

In the rich industrial world, there are pensions and medical care for the elderly, retirement homes and the like. In addition, the net cost to raise a 2010 U.S. newborn to age 18 is about $225,000. That's excluding the costs of college, which vary by country. This is an investment that, cute cuddly smiles aside, will not pay off for decades, if at all.

People respond to incentives, that's all. If having a kid costs 250k, not many people will have a dozen of them. Few in fact will be able to afford having more than 2.

You'd make a great economist. Of course, it's easy for me to say that since I agree with you.

Another factor is that, in modern, high income societies, children can be considered a consumption good: parents sometimes enjoy their antics, are proud of their glorious progeny, etc.

This particular consumption good requires money and a lot of time. When a society gets wealthier, people have other options to consume their time. That's also an explanation of why New Yorkers seem rude to people from areas with less entertainment options.

I can't intuitively disagree with either of your posts with respect to lower birthrates in affluent urban societies.
I think it's a good thing for population dynamics that the information age has established some infrastructure pretty much everywhere in the 3rd World. This is also the beginnings of the 'infrastructure' of the birthrate patterns you both observe.

I see a lot of demographies becoming less and less meaningful as a by-product of the education implied by "affluence". In that respect, I'm a little like Enki. But like Marcus, I can remember a time when there were 1/2 as many people on the genuflecting planet. It was different then.

[Taboo]

The interesting point that Farcus brings up here is that, in the long term, a human population with no restraints of resource availability will grow to the carrying capacity of the system.

Yes, it may be true that responsible adults respond to incentives, and literate smart adults have 1,2,3 children, not more.

How about dumb, undereducated, irresponsible adults --- Idiocracy style, if you wish? After all, it is a long-cherished conservative nightmare - the provident ants being swamped by a sea of malfeasant dancing crickets, devouring all before them like an unstoppable sea of locusts.

The most powerful indicator in this respect is the unwed teenage birth-rate, since being born to an unmarried teenager is the surest indicator of a future life of troubled employment and crime (and teenage parenthood).
Interestingly, teenage births in the latest CDC fertility study are at the lowest level in 70 years of record-keeping. Perhaps it is the influence of shows about how much it sucks to be a teenage-mom, but more likely simply because the continued tough economic conditions make even the most improvident of humans think twice before taking on a 20-year fixed expenditure burden.

Gee, i guess people do respond to incentives.