Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
pbannister's picture
pbannister
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2008
Posts: 1
Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential

The population growth curve is S-shaped rather than a simple exponential. I remember reading an article out of Scientific American back in the 1970's, and finding that even then India (the poster-child for population growth) was fairly clearly following the same curve as Europe and the United States, more-or-less exactly in sync with their improved economic development. A bit of web searching finds similar information today. We still have a lot of growth ahead, but growth will slow, and this gives us a better chance to adapt.

The Wikipedia page on population growth makes a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

Note that India and China not on the "hot" end of population growth.

dmcquirk's picture
dmcquirk
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 30 2008
Posts: 1
Re: Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential
You might want to check your link and look at the graphs you are refering to -- they are on a logarithmic scale. The black and white graph on the same page in your link is a linear scale(classic exponential chart). Population growth is exponetial and will appear flat on a log scale (perfect exponetial function will be a straight line on a log scale). The S shape is due to the variation of the function in that it is changing over time, but an S shape with curvature upward on a log scale would imply that the growth rate is increasing, but it is still exponential.
mcafeejs's picture
mcafeejs
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2008
Posts: 34
Re: Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential
Population growth is exponential up to the point where the population comes up against physical barriers for deer & bacteria, or psychological/physical/unknown reasons for humans.  An S shape is more accurate description of population over a large time frame.  Similarly, money supply will be S shaped which is why we are experiencing deflation and will soon have hyperinflation as interventionist try to unfairly inflate out of this natural downturn...making the future crash even worse.  An S is nothing more than a sine wave or the path of a circle mapped over time.  Very zen of us to mention how things always come full circle when in the context of time it is an S. 
jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 453
Re: Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential

When plotted on a log graph, population growth in a closed system (i.e. bacteria in a sealed flask) follows what is called the "standard growth curve."  Bacteria are the best illustration of simple population growth because their reproduction is limited only by the available nutrients.  Each bacterial cell divides in two, and will continue to do so until it runs out of food.  If you place a single bacterial cell into a flask filled with nutrient broth, population growth will proceed through these stages:

(1) Lag phase:  Period of time when the organism is adjusting to its new environment, finding food sources, synthesizing the necessary enzymes, etc.  You could readily think of analogies which would apply to other animals, including human.  During this time it does not reproduce rapidly.

 (2)  Log (or exponential growth) phase:  During this time the population increases exponentially (i.e. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32) which appears as a straight line on a logarithmic scale.

 (3) Stationary phase:  As the cells begin to run out of food, and waste products accumulate, the rate of growth slows until the number of new cells being born equalls the number which are dying. 

 (4) Death phase:  As food is exhausted, the number of cells dying exceeds the number being born, and the population declines.  In this phase, the population decreases logarithmically (an exponential curve in reverse) since any given cell will have the same (x) chance of dying at any given moment, therefore the absolute number of cells dying will be greater at the beginning of the death phase.

After almost all of the cells in the flask are dead, very small numbers of cells can continue survive for months or even years, surviving on small amount of nutrients and the remains of dead cells. 

standard growth curve

The above example of bacteria in a test tube applies generally to any organism which is reproducing in a closed system.  But when the organism is living in the wild, where resources are renewable at a fixed rate, once the population reaches the "stationary phase" of growth, a steady sine wave pattern forms, as the population repeatedly increases and then dies off again as it presses against the capacity of its environment to provide food and resources:

equilibrium

Humans and other higher animals complicate the situation because their behavior changes in response to worsening conditions.  The fertility of the females will increase as food conditions worsen, resulting in more children per breeding female.  For many hundreds of years, long before effective birth control was introduced, it was observed that among populations of humans living near the point of famine, families tended to have many more children than would be seen in populations that were well-fed.  This is necessary from an individual reproductive standpoint since each offspring stands a greater chance of dying before reaching sexual maturity.  The natural reproduction cycle of a human population is approximately 16-17 years (20-30 years in developed countries), as opposed to mice, for example, which have a reproductive cycle of less than 8 weeks.  As a result, human population trends are much longer, and so a human population could have overshot the carrying capacity of its environment, and thus be in serious trouble, yet this will not become apparent for some time. 

 From the perspective of the individual human, a population which is approaching stationary phase would appear as periodic famines, interspersed with relatively good times, further accentuated by the fact that available resources fluctuate from year to year.  The individual human would not be able to percieve the levelling of the population curve, which would appear to them simply as an increasing number of seasonal famines.

If a human population were placed in an environment where resources were not renewable at a fixed rate, but instead were renewable at a steadily decreasing rate (analogous to petroleum becoming less available than in the past), then things would be distinctly unpleasant.  What happens in a situation such as this is known as a population "crash."

overshoot and crash

The number of living organisms decreases extremely rapidly in a mass die-off, quickly reaching the carrying capacity of the environment, and even decreasing delow it somewhat.  From this point, the regular oscillations of a population at stationary phase will resume.  (From the human perspective, a cycle of periodic famine years, such as humans experienced through most of their history).

pir8don's picture
pir8don
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 456
Re: Population growth

Thanks jrf29 for an excellent sensible summary of population.

Here is a bit of http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_eating_fossi l_fuels_pfeiffer_d.htm#Population%20&%20Sustainability

This leaves the third choice, which itself presents an unspeakable picture of suffering and death. Should we fail to acknowledge this coming crisis and determine to deal with it, we will be faced with a die-off from which civilization may very possibly never revive. We will very likely lose more than the numbers necessary for sustainability. Under a die-off scenario, conditions will deteriorate so badly that the surviving human population would be a negligible fraction of the present population. And those survivors would suffer from the trauma of living through the death of their civilization, their neighbors, their friends and their families. Those survivors will have seen their world crushed into nothing.

 

Guess which we chose?

was writen October 2003.

RayTomes's picture
RayTomes
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: May 20 2009
Posts: 67
Re: Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential
pbannister wrote:

The population growth curve is S-shaped rather than a simple exponential. ...

Correct. Anything growing exponentially runs up against the limits and follows this S shaped curve known as a Gompertz Curve. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz_curve

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential

 Anyone who has grown bacteria or anything else in a flask knows population growth is S-shaped and not exponential.  The point, however, is that the flat-part of the S-curve is caused by limited resources which become exhausted by the exponential growth that precedes the flat part of the S.  We humans are living on the exponential part of the "S" curve.  The point of being aware of that is to also realize that the flat part comes after intermission, so we better do something about it.  

We have three choices:

1)  Cut growth and maintain a stable population sustained by renewable net energy.

2)  Cut energy consumption to support a higher population (and after a few cycles, go back to choice #1)

3)  Suffer mass starvation/extinction.  This naturally leads back to choice 1, but it is not as enjoyable as the other 2 choices.

 

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential

 PS:  We are not bacteria.  We are living in a flask, but we are fortunately still not bacteria.  So far, we are acting like them though.  We can wake up while we are in the exponential part of the curve, or we can wait until it is thrown in our face at the top of the S curve.

jrf29's picture
jrf29
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2008
Posts: 453
Re: Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential
Patrick Brown wrote:

Anyone who has grown bacteria or anything else in a flask knows population growth is S-shaped and not exponential.

Careful.  The standard growth curve includes an exponential phase (or log phase, as it is known in bacteriology at least) which flattens out into a 'stationary phase' according to the Gompertz function (see RayTome's post).  The complete standard growth curve is more "n" shaped because it also inccludes a death phase, which is only relavent in closed systems such as test tubes.

It is true that we are highly intelligent organisms, and not bacteria, but it is also highly ironic that for all of our intelligence we are not capable of controlling our growth on a global scale any more than rabbits, mice, or bacteria.  Part of this is because the actions desired in this case for collective benefit are often directly contrary to self-interest.  Take a population near the point of starvation.  From the perspective of the individual, it is in their self-interest to bear as many children as possible, even if everybody would be better off if there were fewer children.  And even if most people in a population altruistically bore fewer children, while some people bore many children, those who bore many children would be the most successful, culturally and genetically.  Furthermore, even if a significant portion of a population "woke up" as you say, the reproductive capacity of humans is such that even a small minority of the population which (for religious or other reasons) continued to reproduce at higher rates, could rapidly consume the resource void left by those who reproduced more slowly.  The power of exponential growth at work. 

Unless something draconian were done, such as putting birth control into the water supply or some such thing, it is unavoidable: human population, as much as the population of any other species, will grow to reach its carrying capacity.

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential

 jrf129:  Can't argue with any of that.  And yes, the S does turn into an "n" in a completely closed system.  Our system is not completely closed.  There are some (but very few) renewable sources of energy.  Whether they are enough to support the present population is doubtful, and how much they could exactly support is not a guess in my pay-grade.  My point, however, is that there is no point in pointing out that population growth is not exponential but S shaped.  Either way, acting like bacteria will lead to only one predictable result, which as you have pointed out, is an "n" shaped result.

silvervarg's picture
silvervarg
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2010
Posts: 57
Re: Population growth is S-shaped, not exponential

Sorry for bringing an old thread to life.

In many areas we have to guess pretty big what even the next 10 years will be, even if we have some facts. Oil production is one good example. Experts disagree from increased production to heavilly declining production.

However in the population growth we basicly know most of the facts for at least the next 25 years, and that really makes a difference.
Lets assume every female has an average lifespan of 70 years and very few of them have children after age of 45.
So, we know pretty well how long people will live, and we know pretty well the birthrate in every country in the world.
That means it is no problem to predict the next 25 years with a predicted error of only a few percent.

Here is a link to a page with a graph about possible Population growth.

We know that we are aiming for a scenario slightly above the TFR 2.1 curve with slowly dropping fertillity rates.
So, when just looking at fertillity rates and the most likely development of that front we are going to slowly reaching the max out point of about 10 billions in world population.

What is scarier is that normally we estimate that the average lifespan will be fairly constant.
There are many factors saying that this is not likely to be the case.
Currently the world average lifespan is slightly less than 70 years. In the best developed countries we allready start to pass 85 years. With advances in medical science and increased wealth it is likely that this limit will be pushed a lot further, at least to over 100 years.
For the sake of argument lets say by 2100 we have increased average lifespan to double what we have today (so we are closing in on 140 years). Then we will end up with a world population of about 20 billion.

Still I claim we are not heading for exponential population growth, but will approach a steady level.
If you believe in this the next question is: Can we sustain 10-15 billion people on this planet by 2050?

 

Dustoffer's picture
Dustoffer
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 16 2012
Posts: 1
boom and crash curve

The human population is following the classic half bell shaped boom and crash curve.  By mid century a combination of various depletion and pollution effects will lower food and water supply to only enough for  perhaps 3 billion by mid-century.   A crash in population must occur then or before, starting with increasing death rates along with the already falling birth rates.   It is ignorant to think that this will not happen, when biology and ecology tell us it will in population science, which I have studied since 1967.

One doesn't need to just look at exponential math, or  economics.  Rates of soil depletion from over-use and other causes, fisheries depletion, aquifer depletion, and oil depletion, along with pollution effects of mainly CAGW, dictate this lower food and water supply before or at mid century.  To stop the crash would take a near moratorium on having kids for 20 years followed by one child families until a new sustainable level is reached.   To stop extinction of our own species and nearly 90% of others, circa 3000AD, would require reduction in emissions of 90% by 2020 or the methane turnover scenario will lead to AETM and ELE completion, with several hundred thousand years to resequester the CO2 and another several million to regain biodiversity in the biosphere.

It is unfortunate that this is the way it really is, and not  the S curve hoped, but not supported.

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
Exponential Growth

It's funny, actually, that it seems so obvious and yet the most intelligent animal on this planet seems to be completely blind.

Lets just say that humans ARE bacteria, and that there's nothing whatsoever they can do to change the course of their bacterial growth any more than bacteria can.

From that assumption, we SHOULD be able to determine an equation which, within certain ranges of interpolation, will show us WHAT will happen and WHEN.

Just from my sorely-lacking skills, I can take the best growth curve that is not just a theoretical growth curve taken from e-coli growth, for example and with Photoshop I should be able to match the height-to-width ratio on World Population Growth.

I, of course, have DONE that. It only takes about a half-hour.

Now, you can put in a graph and see what happens.

...

Why don't humans do that? Because they have this stupid assumption that some external factor will somehow magically step-in (God?) and reverse the process for us because we're 'SMART'.

Well, our amount of smartness hasn't seemed to have dented the world population growth in the past 50 years (remember the 'World Population Growth' movement? It didn't dent the population growth curve one bit).

In all the assumptions people add-in other factors as if they matter such as oil production or the economy. Those are secondary factors. When people study bacteria curves they never determine just WHAT killed-off the bacteria. It doesn't MATTER. It's all a  MOOT POINT.

All you need-do when determining and interpolating what will happen with bacteria is put the growth rate in and that can be determined quite easily... by measurement.

So, hows about everybody here take what they already know about exponential growth, take the actual figures of World Population Growth and ASSUME that bacteria and us are the same. From that information, what happens... in what year does the population go into plummet, and by what amount?

I would say that, if one does such a thing, one should be able to come up with a best and worst case scenario.

I've done that, myself, using the curve for e-coli and my curves show the following:

By 2050 there are 9.1 billion people.

By 2150 the flat part of the curve is reached.

By 2200 the population starts to plummet.

By 2350 the population has reached a low of 1 million again... bacteria growth never dies-out completely-completely. Isn't that a hopeful thought?

I would suggest everybody else to do the same. Find a nice solid bacteria growth curve that is not based on theory. Use Photoshop to stretch the height-per-width ratio until the curve exactly fits the world population growth (minus the interpolation crap that supposed scientists like to tack-on to it which are so much malarky). There's the answer.

 

Now, figure that with my curve - that was worst-case. Best case is that it starts to flatten-off as short a time as 2050 and ends up at the bottom at around 2150.

Why is it that this organism has such arrogance that it thinks that it can somehow modify a curve which has not modified in the slightest bit in the past 200 years? Is there any slight dent in the curve at all, anywhere? Nope. So, we are bacteria... period. If we are bacteria, then bacterial curves should fit perfectly. If bacterial curves fit perfectly, we should be able to, quite easily, determine exactly what will happen using any old bacteria curve. Try many different bacteria curves just to make sure and that should be the answer.

Now, instead of argue about it - try it yourself. The secret it... find a bacteria curve which isn't based on theory. It has to be real measured figures of bacteria, not some curve which is based on some model equation.

 

 

 

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
I Also...

Took the exact same bacterial curve and matched it to America's Stock Market just to see what would happen; again, it seems to be an exponential curve. What it shows is... the current trend is just a trend... it will keep going up for a time, then flatten-off, and by 2070 it will-have completely plummetted. So, it's not going to go balistically-low for another 60 years. So be prepared for a steep upwards trend in the stock market. Then that stubborn flat period between 2020 and 2050 when it flattens-out. Heh, heh. But it will go back up again, don't worry. Yeah, right. 

 

OK, that's using the most depressing figures. Using the most hopeful figures shows that we go upward with the stock market until 2040, where it starts to flatten-out. It then will stay flat until 2070 and then plummet down until in 2115 it will be as flat as it was back in 1950.

That in no way means we will easily be able to grow back to an exponential again, immediately, by then. Just as with bacteria, they don't immediately bounce-back again in that petri dish.

So, the secret is: get as good a true bacterial growth curve as you can. Don't use a curve which is just a theoretical curve. It must be an actual curve of measured bacterial growth and that should give true figures.

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
What is one of the factors that make us the same as bacteria?

Capitalism.

Capitalism is what forces everybody to not listen. It, itself, is an exponential curve and therefore has mechanisms in place which force people to keep growing exponentially. If they stop growing exponentially, or even try and slow-down the curve (Republicans and rich people) then those people say lies which raise the curve again. The workers also go right along with it because the instant someone loses their job, they need to have a job again or it means death to that organism and that organism's family. If 'morals' are what counter the curve, morals go out the window the instant that someone loses their job. They'll instantly do anything at all in order to keep their family unit intact. Kill people? Sure, slaughter a million animals? Sure, increase the amount of oil that is produced coming from the ground? Sure. Reduce energy consumption? God forbid. Everything would crash if we were to drop energy consumption, keep moving it upwards, upwards, upwards, close your eyes everybody.

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
Argument is one of the bacterial traits

What I'm saying is so obvious; yet nobody will do it. Instead, they will perpetually argue and argue and argue until the equation I just mentioned comes up in our face in a truly obvious way.

 

So, if your first response isn't to go find an actual graph of bacteria growth... there is the problem. Argument replaces action, and that's HOW and WHY we will die exactly the same as bacteria do using their exact same curve.

We will be the first animal in known history where a handful of people showed the demise; and after-the-fact people will go, "Huh, so you were right," but weren't able to do one thing to stop the demise.

Strange how human intelligence seems to have certain limits.

It would seem that it isn't a matter of whether it will occur, it is a matter of 'just when will the knee start to flatten-out and just when will it plummet'?

And, smarter people than I am should be able to hone the concept... possibly even proving how, when taken as a group, humans act exactly like bacteria would act.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1578
Bacterial Growth Curve

I hope that we develop enough perspective on this process that we can respond to it with some creativity.  It is my impression that this is exactly what "The Crash Course" and this forum is about--finding perspective on these processes, like population dynamics, that we are in the middle of.

One of the pp members, in talking about water policy, noted that "most people will not become interested in water issues until they turn the handle on the tap and nothing comes out."  Sadly, there is much truth in that.  But not for all of us.  And gathered here are some people who witness the exponential population growth curve and understand that it will be forced into an "S" shape.  We don't like this, but we have enough perspective to see the writing on the wall.  And we are owning the predicament.  ("Yep, we humans are in a pickle.")

Out of some clear seeing of what is happening, and honest owning of the predicament, some creative responses arise.

 

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
The process

Well, the process I used was quite simple, actually.

I found the best bacteria curve I could which I thought was actual measurements rather than just being an ideal curve.

I brought it into Photoshop and made the background transparent, deleting the background. I then made a selection of the curve and used stroke to widen the line one pixel.

Next I took curves from the internet of World Population Growth (the problem, again, is whether you are getting real-world measured population growth curves, or whether they are just idealized curves) and used Photoshop's size gadget to distort the height/width ratio and size until the curve exactly matched the bacteria curve.

I then cloned the distance between the year markers, extending the year markers up and up and up until I had markers that went up past the year 2200.

There was certainly a range of choices... which basically had everything to do with how high the population might rise before it started flattening-out. What it showed, though, was because of the rapid plummet... you didn't have all THAT much range. You couldn't, for example, make the curve go past about 2300 without having the exponential curve not at all fit the world population curve any more.

Of course if the bacteria curve wasn't correct, then the interpolation would not be accurate. In order for it to truly be scientific... I was hoping that by spreading the idea that someone might actually take measurements from bacteria, that would give a truly accurate die-off line... or even combine the growth rates from many different kind of bacteria, creating an average die-off curve (which would probably be more like 'any population which overgrows at an uncontrolled rate'.

Finally, the world population could be better determined by taking the curves from all major continents and adding them all together into an average curve.

The secret would be... just assume that we ARE like bacteria, that our brains AREN'T any different, that the bigger controlling factors are exactly the same self-preserving factors which cause bacteria to overgrow (seeing that the World Population growth doesn't at all seem to be influenced by things such as 'Zero Population Growth' groups). and SEE where it leads.

My main problem is... am I really using curves which are true measured curves from actual bacteria colonies? And, am I truly using actual curves from true current World Population Growth numbers?

I would say, however, that even my experiments might show something important. It might give at least a range which one might go by.

The interesting thing was... not all exponential curves (World Population, Oil Production, Stock Market, GNP, U.S. Population, etc.) all end up plummeting at the same year. The worst seemed to be Capitalism. It started flattening-out in 2070, which was scary. In fact, the final flat line before the plummet was pretty short because of the exadurated rise. The faster it rose, the faster it plummeted.

Also, some countries plummetted before others did. The best was South America. The worst WASN'T the United States, strange enough.

It could be that everybody seems to be ignoring the die-off phase of the exponential curve because a pure exponential goes-off-to-infinity. American Capitalism has banked on that curve, and absolutely NEVER shows a die-off part to the exponential. When they compute the die-off exponential, they compute it as a separate curve. It has no relationship to the forward-exponential curve and therefore nobody ever integrates it.

But I figure, you already have a pure die-off curve, and that's the die-off curve of bacteria. So, if you don't have a mathematical curve, use the bacteria curve itself to do the assessments. It should give exact readings (pooh on those who have the illusion that we're 'smarter' than bacteria. The math shows that we aren't; so assume that we aren't and you should have your answer.

 

 

 

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
My Experiments

So, this in no way is scientific... but it's interesting and might give people an idea.

http://thewind777.angelfire.com/exponentials.html

The last link is a zip archive containing the two PSD-formatted Photoshop layered documents.

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
What is there...

The first image is just a pure photo of the Bacteria graph I used from the internet.

The next five are my experiments, going best-and-worst case scenarios trying to best-fit the curve.

The next three are experments using the Stock Market curve. Sorry that StockMarket1.jpg still has the blue and red background from the World Population growth graph.

Finally are the PSD files so you could do your own experiments.

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
When I Actually Did Those

I just looked-back to see when I had orginally done those.

I've never shared those with anybody but my best friend, before.

I originally got the idea and did them back between January 27th and Jan 29th of 2011. Three months later I did the last stock market graph (don't remember why there was that big gap in time).

Funny how I'm again doing it around the same time of year (2/19/2013) two years later. Guess I must start thinking about world population about this time of year. Since I live in Mesa, Arizona... it's not the most depressing time of the year like when I used to live in New Hampshire; so can't blame it on that.

Don't remember where I got the idea. Hope the concept spurs someone smarter than I am with more influence than I have to doing something smarter and more influential with the information. Don't just steal the information and create some terrorist book on the subject, though. I hate when people steal ideas and do stupid things with the information I put out there. Use the information in a creative way to encourage the world to wake up.

Unfortunately, I believe it is already way too late. I think that we were all born into this time period and all we can do is observe and be journalists to the events as they occur. It's a s*** hits the fan kind of moment, where we've been staring at the brick wall from a hundred miles off, forever; and we'ver really been doing next to nothing about it.

People said about fossil fuels doing such a thing from back about when I was born. They warned that the burning of coal and oil would do this and could easily have done something 60 years ago. Now, 60 years have gone by and little-to-nothing has been done.

Here's the 2007 Energy Production in the United States:

http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/energy/usenergy3.html

If you lump coal, natural gas and petroleum all into one (which they really are)... that means that even in the U.S., where we have people worried about this problem and in a country where we have enough money to actually do something about it... 80 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels.

And, the 'other' dangerous one, nuclear, is almost the rest of the pie-chart. It's like, "Which way do you want to destroy the planet, paper or plastic?"

Hydoelectric is only 3.43 percent.

Come forward to 2013?

http://www.juancole.com/2013/01/gigawatts-renewables-energy.html

"The bad news is that the US still generated 5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2012, the highest per capita in the OECD nations! We are poisoning the world and provoking catastrophic climate change, and all the good news about wind and solar doesn’t offset our massive contribution to looming environmental disaster.

Specially bad news is that 1.4 gigawatts of new, dirty coal power was brought online in 2012 in the US. That should be illegal! Coal is poisoning us and our world! Carbon dioxide in the quantities we are producing it is a toxin for the world. Not to mention that we are being mercury-poisoned by dirty coal emissions!"

I saw the movie, "Bacteria, to the Future'; the problem is, we don't have a Delorean..

 

 

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
Which major problem do you wish to talk about

Unfortunately, we talk because there's really nothing else we can do. The magnitude of these things would take concerted effort for years to reverse.

The 'island of plastic' in the Pacific is now twice the size of France.

http://www.zmescience.com/science/oceanography/just-in-case-you-didnt-know-theres-a-garbage-island-twice-as-big-as-france-in-the-pacific-ocean/

In that assessment he says, "In case you’re wondering, no, I don’t think there’s anything you can do to help clean the patch up (even if you wanted to."

"Marine animals and birds ingest plastic which just doesn’t go away from their stomach. Eventually, it starts filling it up, and if it’s not toxic, and kills them, it fills their stomach and basically causes the animals to starve to death – a quite painful and tragic death. It can be harmful even for humans because we too eat the animals which ingest the plastic."

So, humans are just, basically, monsters. We're a disease upon the planet; and we call it care to extend our lives out so we can all live to be 90... yet make fun of old people at every turn?

I think, if I had the power to create a bacteria which was to only wipe out humans? I would do it. It would be the most caring thing any person might do for the planet.

Every problem we face isn't a problem of garbage, and isn't a problem of fossil fuels, or isn't a problem of global warming. It's a problem of too many people. We NEED this exponential equation to be RIGHT. We need it to kill-off 80 billion people BEFORE we wipe out all the majestic animals such as the elephant, the gorilla, the giraffe, the panda, the etc.

We're just not worth it. We are not worth the destruction of every other organism on the planet just because of our selfish arrogance.

 

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
A Pickle

Unfortunately, the rest of the world is in the pickle. We are just the monsters in their life-dreams. The Gorilla can do nothing but die before our might. The poor innocent animals are the ones who suffer under our idiotic system of constant fearful rise.

We won this awful war, dominating all other species via our idiotic, ruthless, evil, warlike, selfish, arrogant spirit, a hundred years ago. We are afraid of everything, and we destroy all that we are afraid of, so we destroy everything.

The animals who never do anything to anybody are the only meek that I see, not humans. They DESERVE to inherit the Earth; but I believe that the ruthless will inherit an awful, destroyed world way before that happens. The creepy anmals like humans, cockroaches, rats, sea gulls, black birds, all creepy thieves, bacteria, all vicious stealing, thieving organisms. Deer, rabbits, cows, and other idiotic-yet-gentle creatures aren't going to be the ones who will be end players in this bloody free-for-all end game of destruction.

 

 

 

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
One Man

Of course, what one man can do is just pitiful. If one man does something; but everybody else does nothing, then what the Hell?

I never had kids, on purpose. It isn't like I don't LIKE kids. I work teaching disadvantaged youth. I have over 250-kids-per-day and that number will probably go up to 300-per-day this summer.

The reason I had no kids was... back when I was 18-years old I realized the world was overpopulated and it was, equivalently, "a sin" to have kids.

As it is, I see it as a sin to have kids and have told people that throughout my life. Who cares? The church discourages condoms? If there really were a God, he certainly wouldn't be discouraging condoms right now - so we can certainly see what side of the equation the church is on in this manner. They are on the side of evil if there are ANY on the side of good.

But, bringing it back to me... what possible good did I do by not having those one, or two, kids? In the end, possibly four people followed my example. Big deal, who cares?

I didn't have a car until I was about 50 years old. Finally, I moved to the big dirty city of Phoenix and had to buy a car. I couldn't survive without the car now. About half-a-year ago I moved close enough to my place of work so that I could actually ride my bicyle to work again; but at 60. That really isn't a good alternative when it's 120 degrees out (Mesa, AZ). The day I tried it my workers said I looked like I had run a marathon.

What did not using a car for 40 years accomplish in the long-term? Nothing whatsoever, because everybody else used their cars during that same time period. They just thought ME crazy during all that time, and judged me because I used the public transporation system and my teeny, tiny bicycle.

For a while I was actually bicycling every day to work until a car came unexpectantly out of the driveway, I went flying and broke my scaffoid bone in my wrist. After that, I couldn't ride the bike for 5 months and that was that. Too many cars out there to safely ride a bicycle; too few bicycle paths.

Sigh, I do have to say that this has been one big ship, and I think we're all going down...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
A Sin

By 'sin', I mean 'incredibly sad', or 'incredibly selfish', or 'mindless idiocy'.

And, because to me 'evil' has to do with those three things, then it means evil.

 

 

TheWind777's picture
TheWind777
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2013
Posts: 13
Averaged Exponential Curves

Some thoughts for those who might stumble across this page some day...

The other day I came up with another concept that might help when coming up with accurate relationships.

Is there any branch of mathematics where they average various exponential curves to arrive at one average exponential curve?

For example, can one take the exponential drop-off from the Gross National Product, average it with the drop-off of World Population Growth (or something more local such as the U.S. Population growth), average that with the exponential of CO2 growth in the air (if that happens to be exponential) and come up with a exponential curve which will detail better what the overall-future might look like?

It is also possible that the shortest exponential growth curve (which seems to be the Capitalistic growth curve) is the one which will control all other growth curves to a higher degree... so that an average over many different exponentials might not mean anything.

For example, if Capitalism were to plummet in 2070... wouldn't that affect other exponential growth rates, particularly in America? Some exponentials seem to be 'more important' than others are.

For example, if the production of food is an exponential curve (didn't research it... but it only stands to reason that it might be), then wouldn't that be a causitive factor for what might cause the World Population Growth to eventually plummet?

So, if one were to match exponential growth factors which seem to have logical connections with each other (an exponential on Wheat or Corn Growth, for example, having an inverse relationship with the exponential on Population Growth)... or an exponential relationship to the loss of fish in the oceans year-by-year as pertaining to the data that must be out there relating the number of fish taken each year and how that rate is declining.

Also, is there some way to subtract two inverse relationship exponentials point-for-point where the resulting interpolated line might tell you something?

Just some thoughts I had which someone researching such things might add parts of those concepts to their methodology.

 

Lev_Kalmykov's picture
Lev_Kalmykov
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 30 2015
Posts: 2
Individual-Based Mechanisms Of Population Growth

Logical deterministic individual-based cellular automata model of interspecific competition for a single limited resource. A mechanism of competitive exclusion of one species by another.

Logical deterministic individual-based cellular automata model of interspecific competition for a single limited resource. A mechanism of competitive exclusion of one species by another.

 

 

Lev_Kalmykov's picture
Lev_Kalmykov
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 30 2015
Posts: 2
Individual-Based Mechanisms Of Population Growth

Logical deterministic individual-based cellular automata model of an ecosystem with one species. The model demonstrates a mechanism of S-shaped population growth.

 

Logical deterministic individual-based cellular automata model of an ecosystem with one species. The model demonstrates a mechanism of S-shaped population growth.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments