I’ve seen graphs that show world population will eventually peak of it’s own accord
I think they are lying and I’m on to them.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ve seen graphs that show world population will eventually peak of it’s own accord
I think they are lying and I’m on to them.

China is running into peak old person which is going to throw a spanner into their works.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ve seen graphs that show world population will eventually peak of it’s own accord
I think they are lying and I’m on to them.

Happens when more people die, than are being born. Not so much as when, but how they die.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ve seen graphs that show world population will eventually peak of it’s own accord
I think they are lying and I’m on to them.

Not so much lying as mistaking short term trends for long term trends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate (TFR)
The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.0 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK, for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates. Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman.

What happened following the development of reliable and cheap contraception was a decline in fertility rate throughout the world. Beginning in the US and continuing through Europe, Russia, China, and then on to southern Asia and eventually Africa, with only a few exceptions. If the TFR had continued to decline at that rate then world population would peak and eventually crash. There were already signs that this was happening throughout Europe. Parts of Europe were abandoned by people as there were no longer enough people available to work the farms and industries. In Spain, to take an extreme example, the TFR dropped to 1.3 children per woman, which is way below sustainability levels.

But the reduction in TFR has been a short term rather than long term trend. The TFR is already on the rise again in the USA, throughout Europe, and in Australia.

That said …

Either a world economic collapse or a world war would or at least could cause a collapse in world population. For instance, the fall of Rome caused population levels to crash throughout all the places that had previously been dependent on or trading with the Roman Empire. The modern equivalent would be the fall of the American / or Chinese Empire.

mollwollfumble said:

Either a world economic collapse or a world war would or at least could cause a collapse in world population.

…or pandemic or environmental collapse resulting in famine and/or other severe hardship.

The worlds economy is based on growth.
Growth requires more people, more people expands the market because they need houses and services and commodities which drives growth which requires more people and so it goes.
If a country doesn’t grow it is punished by a small cabal of global credit raters who answer to no one.
Unless we change the paradigm populations will continue to swell until we have exhausted the resources.
That’s when peak people will be reached, then it’s back to living like Quakers and Shakers as God intended.
Tending our flocks by night, rising and sleeping to the natural rhythm of the solar passage in a frugal but happy sunlit upland under the blanket of protection provided by our Creator.

Where are these graphs you speak of?

Speedy said:

Where are these graphs you speak of?

On the internet.

Peak Warming Man said:

Speedy said:

Where are these graphs you speak of?

On the internet.

Here’s a start. Three predictrions of which the lower one shows a peak population.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/2000px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png

Economic growth is not dependent on population growth.

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Speedy said:

Where are these graphs you speak of?

On the internet.

Here’s a start. Three predictrions of which the lower one shows a peak population.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/2000px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/
This website gives peak population charts for each country. For example Afghanistan.

The worlds economy is based on growth. … Economic growth is not dependent on population growth.

Looks like this is a hypothesis that needs testing.

And some countries with a higher population

Russia reached its peak population in 1995.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

On the internet.

Here’s a start. Three predictrions of which the lower one shows a peak population.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/2000px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/
This website gives peak population charts for each country. For example Afghanistan.

Can you post one for the world Moll, I’ve got a very tenuous connection here.

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Here’s a start. Three predictrions of which the lower one shows a peak population.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/2000px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/
This website gives peak population charts for each country. For example Afghanistan.

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/2_Probabilistic%20Projections/1_Population/1_Total%20Population/Afghanistan.png

Can you post one for the world Moll, I’ve got a very tenuous connection here.

OK, just for you.

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/
This website gives peak population charts for each country. For example Afghanistan.

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/2_Probabilistic%20Projections/1_Population/1_Total%20Population/Afghanistan.png

Can you post one for the world Moll, I’ve got a very tenuous connection here.

OK, just for you.

Thanks Moll.

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Can you post one for the world Moll, I’ve got a very tenuous connection here.

OK, just for you.

Thanks Moll.

Don’t look good. Nature does not like excesses. It will stop it somehow. Man can’t win against nature, because we are part of it.

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

OK, just for you.

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/2_Probabilistic%20Projections/1_Population/1_Total%20Population/WORLD.png

Thanks Moll.

Don’t look good. Nature does not like excesses. It will stop it somehow. Man can’t win against nature, because we are part of it.

On the other hand, Nature doesn’t like stasis. Nothing in nature is or ever has been static.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Thanks Moll.

Don’t look good. Nature does not like excesses. It will stop it somehow. Man can’t win against nature, because we are part of it.

On the other hand, Nature doesn’t like stasis. Nothing in nature is or ever has been static.

except a form of electricity.

Obviously, there is uncertainty in any projection of the future.

On the other hand, I would hope that no one here is going to ride the anti-expert wave. The opinion of people whose profession it is to analyse demography is that a population maximum will be reached within a century, and the discussion is about when and how high that peak will be.

Population growth rates have experienced a monotonic decline that shows no sign in abating but it is important to note that demographers do not base their projections on some simple curve analysis. They are relying on social, ethnic, economic, gender, familial, health, and lifestyle, age distribution and conflict factors in all countries and sub-national areas.

And their projections have stacked up. The UN’s forward projections since the 1990s have proved accurate.

Obviously, something fundamentally could change in the future that would reverse or slow this decline in population growth: the chances of that happening is non-zero. On the other hand, the chances that it happens is also very small. For a couple of generations now, the planet has been headed towards a plateau in population between 2050 and 2150, as statistical fertility continues to decline almost everywhere. The lay folk who dispute this are very much in the same category as climate change denialists, as this point is less controversial among demographers than anthropogenic climate change is among climatologists.

dv said:

Obviously, something fundamentally could change in the future that would reverse or slow this decline in population growth: the chances of that happening is non-zero. On the other hand, the chances that it happens is also very small. For a couple of generations now, the planet has been headed towards a plateau in population between 2050 and 2150, as statistical fertility continues to decline almost everywhere. The lay folk who dispute this are very much in the same category as climate change denialists, as this point is less controversial among demographers than anthropogenic climate change is among climatologists.

No, they are in the extreme opposite camp to climate change denialists. That is they consider all the evidence with true scepticism, and consider the consequences should future events be worse than predicted, as well as better than predicted. If the consequences are sufficiently bad, then action should be taken to prevent or reduce those events, even if the probability is very low.

I would hope that this camp would include almost all experts, as well as lay folk, but I doubt that it does.

dv said:

Obviously, there is uncertainty in any projection of the future.

On the other hand, I would hope that no one here is going to ride the anti-expert wave. The opinion of people whose profession it is to analyse demography is that a population maximum will be reached within a century, and the discussion is about when and how high that peak will be.

Population growth rates have experienced a monotonic decline that shows no sign in abating but it is important to note that demographers do not base their projections on some simple curve analysis. They are relying on social, ethnic, economic, gender, familial, health, and lifestyle, age distribution and conflict factors in all countries and sub-national areas.

And their projections have stacked up. The UN’s forward projections since the 1990s have proved accurate.

Obviously, something fundamentally could change in the future that would reverse or slow this decline in population growth: the chances of that happening is non-zero. On the other hand, the chances that it happens is also very small. For a couple of generations now, the planet has been headed towards a plateau in population between 2050 and 2150, as statistical fertility continues to decline almost everywhere. The lay folk who dispute this are very much in the same category as climate change denialists, as this point is less controversial among demographers than anthropogenic climate change is among climatologists.

“a plateau in population between 2050 and 2150” is I think you will agree a long way off and during which time a number of very dramatic events are likely to take place that will impact on human populations. For anyone to be as certain of population movement as you seem to be, either up or down needs to take a reality check.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Obviously, there is uncertainty in any projection of the future.

On the other hand, I would hope that no one here is going to ride the anti-expert wave. The opinion of people whose profession it is to analyse demography is that a population maximum will be reached within a century, and the discussion is about when and how high that peak will be.

“a plateau in population between 2050 and 2150” is I think you will agree a long way off and during which time a number of very dramatic events are likely to take place that will impact on human populations. For anyone to be as certain of population movement as you seem to be, either up or down needs to take a reality check.

What dv has said is a complete falsehood. See the graph above produced by “people whose profession it is to analyse demography” working for the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. You’d have a hard time finding a more professional group of experts. “a population maximum will be reached within a century” is totally wrong. The experts say that there is an 80% probability that there will NOT be a population maximum within a century.

Wha? That graph doesn’t even show the range I mentioned, from 2050 to 2150.

do humans know why they breed

transition said:

do humans know why they breed

I think humans breed for a variety of reasons/rationalisations and have various levels of knowledge about this.

dv said:

transition said:

do humans know why they breed

I think humans breed for a variety of reasons/rationalisations and have various levels of knowledge about this.

sounds intellectual (reasons/rationalisations)

transition said:

sounds intellectual

I’m sorry

dv said:

transition said:

sounds intellectual

I’m sorry

nah wasn’t a poke at what ya said

I just think it’s fertile territory for thought to dress reality up as something it’s not.

It’s okay, I found a graph of the UN’s projection that includes the range I mentioned, 2050 to 2150.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange/longrangeExecSum.pdf

transition said:

dv said:

transition said:

sounds intellectual

I’m sorry

nah wasn’t a poke at what ya said

I just think it’s fertile territory for thought to dress reality up as something it’s not.

I mean I think a lot of incidents of breeding are straight accidents, not for any particular reason.

dv said:

It’s okay, I found a graph of the UN’s projection that includes the range I mentioned, 2050 to 2150.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange/longrangeExecSum.pdf

Their projection status updating may need some work.

The UN Population Division projections also no longer run to 2150 (or even for another century from now) but they do show a plateau approaching in 2100 in their median projection (the blue line):
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/Files/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf

dv said:

transition said:

dv said:

I’m sorry

nah wasn’t a poke at what ya said

I just think it’s fertile territory for thought to dress reality up as something it’s not.

I mean I think a lot of incidents of breeding are straight accidents, not for any particular reason.

dunno.

replicators replicate, I know that

transition said:

dv said:

transition said:

nah wasn’t a poke at what ya said

I just think it’s fertile territory for thought to dress reality up as something it’s not.

I mean I think a lot of incidents of breeding are straight accidents, not for any particular reason.

dunno.

replicators replicate, I know that

But there’s not always a “reason” for it, per se. Water condenses, then evaporates. Stars burn out. Stuff happens and anything else is a story.

dv said:

transition said:

dv said:

I mean I think a lot of incidents of breeding are straight accidents, not for any particular reason.

dunno.

replicators replicate, I know that

But there’s not always a “reason” for it, per se. Water condenses, then evaporates. Stars burn out. Stuff happens and anything else is a story.

i’m happy enough with the unreasoned, reasonlessness, it’s got its good attributes, some of it.

there are too mechanisms (involving forces) that incline life with stories, and here we are.

i’d say human minds haven’t changed much in a couple hundred thousand years, still threatened with extinction on the african savanna.

transition said:

dv said:

transition said:

dunno.

replicators replicate, I know that

But there’s not always a “reason” for it, per se. Water condenses, then evaporates. Stars burn out. Stuff happens and anything else is a story.

i’m happy enough with the unreasoned, reasonlessness, it’s got its good attributes, some of it.

there are too mechanisms (involving forces) that incline life with stories, and here we are.

i’d say human minds haven’t changed much in a couple hundred thousand years, still threatened with extinction on the african savanna.

People respond to local stimulus, though. Stable economies and growth and good institutions are correlated with declining statistical fertility. In India, flippin India, statistical fertility has declined from 3.1 in 2000 to 2.4 in 2015. It’s the same in Bangladesh.

The only parts of the globe where statistical fertility remains above 3.0 are Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sub-Saharan Africa. So a lot will depend on the level of development in economic and governmental development in sub-Saharan Africa.

dv said:

transition said:

dv said:

But there’s not always a “reason” for it, per se. Water condenses, then evaporates. Stars burn out. Stuff happens and anything else is a story.

i’m happy enough with the unreasoned, reasonlessness, it’s got its good attributes, some of it.

there are too mechanisms (involving forces) that incline life with stories, and here we are.

i’d say human minds haven’t changed much in a couple hundred thousand years, still threatened with extinction on the african savanna.

People respond to local stimulus, though. Stable economies and growth and good institutions are correlated with declining statistical fertility. In India, flippin India, statistical fertility has declined from 3.1 in 2000 to 2.4 in 2015. It’s the same in Bangladesh.

The only parts of the globe where statistical fertility remains above 3.0 are Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sub-Saharan Africa. So a lot will depend on the level of development in economic and governmental development in sub-Saharan Africa.

Although the RATE of population growth in some countries has declined in recent years, those coloured green and above, have populations that are still increasing, although at a reduced rate.

dv said:

Wha? That graph doesn’t even show the range I mentioned, from 2050 to 2150.

You said “within a century”, which means “before 2117”.

One factor that does not seem to be considered in these projections is that in a population where people voluntarily limit the number of children that they have, on average, the offspring of the parents who have the most babies, will tend to have more than average babies, so this tendency of genes to maximise their numbers will tend to act in the opposite direction to the memes that tend to reduce the number of children.

AFAIK, no-one knows the magnitude of this effect, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t zero.

The Rev Dodgson said:

One factor that does not seem to be considered in these projections is that in a population where people voluntarily limit the number of children that they have, on average, the offspring of the parents who have the most babies, will tend to have more than average babies, so this tendency of genes to maximise their numbers will tend to act in the opposite direction to the memes that tend to reduce the number of children.

AFAIK, no-one knows the magnitude of this effect, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t zero.

AFIK, education is what drives people to voluntarily limit the number of children they produce. Of my family it has been only one of my sister’s two daughters who has exceeded the two children rate. She really needed professional mental health help. Her other daughter and the progeny of both myself and my brother are all two children families.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

One factor that does not seem to be considered in these projections is that in a population where people voluntarily limit the number of children that they have, on average, the offspring of the parents who have the most babies, will tend to have more than average babies, so this tendency of genes to maximise their numbers will tend to act in the opposite direction to the memes that tend to reduce the number of children.

AFAIK, no-one knows the magnitude of this effect, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t zero.

AFIK, education is what drives people to voluntarily limit the number of children they produce. Of my family it has been only one of my sister’s two daughters who has exceeded the two children rate. She really needed professional mental health help. Her other daughter and the progeny of both myself and my brother are all two children families.

My parents has two planned + one accident.

>One factor that does not seem to be considered in these projections is that in a population where people voluntarily limit the number of children that they have, on average, the offspring of the parents who have the most babies, will tend to have more than average babies, so this tendency of genes to maximise their numbers will tend to act in the opposite direction to the memes that tend to reduce the number of children.
AFAIK, no-one knows the magnitude of this effect, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t zero.

lot of polulation growth is increased longevity

The Rev Dodgson said:

One factor that does not seem to be considered in these projections is that in a population where people voluntarily limit the number of children that they have, on average, the offspring of the parents who have the most babies, will tend to have more than average babies, so this tendency of genes to maximise their numbers will tend to act in the opposite direction to the memes that tend to reduce the number of children.

AFAIK, no-one knows the magnitude of this effect, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t zero.

What evidence do you present that demographers do not account for this?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

transition said:

i’m happy enough with the unreasoned, reasonlessness, it’s got its good attributes, some of it.

there are too mechanisms (involving forces) that incline life with stories, and here we are.

i’d say human minds haven’t changed much in a couple hundred thousand years, still threatened with extinction on the african savanna.

People respond to local stimulus, though. Stable economies and growth and good institutions are correlated with declining statistical fertility. In India, flippin India, statistical fertility has declined from 3.1 in 2000 to 2.4 in 2015. It’s the same in Bangladesh.

The only parts of the globe where statistical fertility remains above 3.0 are Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sub-Saharan Africa. So a lot will depend on the level of development in economic and governmental development in sub-Saharan Africa.

Although the RATE of population growth in some countries has declined in recent years, those coloured green and above, have populations that are still increasing, although at a reduced rate.

The relationship between fertility and population is complex because there is a big lag: I mean we have a big hump left over from the post war boom, and that lump will be there til they die regardless of what the fertility rate is now.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Wha? That graph doesn’t even show the range I mentioned, from 2050 to 2150.

You said “within a century”, which means “before 2117”.

Having reviewed the thread, I said within a century, and later changed to “2050 to 2150”. I concede “within a century” was too bold but note that a) the graphs above stop at 2100 and b) the median path in those graphs certainly do seem to be quickly approaching a maximum or a plateau.

Specifically, in 2060 in that graph, the median path is growing at 38 million per year. At 2080, 31 million per year. At 2100, 18 million per year.

I mean simple curve fitting is not the way to do it because the UN’s approach is going to involve tracking countless relevant variables, but that’s a curve consistent with a peak somewhere from 2120 to 2130, right?

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Wha? That graph doesn’t even show the range I mentioned, from 2050 to 2150.

You said “within a century”, which means “before 2117”.

Having reviewed the thread, I said within a century, and later changed to “2050 to 2150”. I concede “within a century” was too bold but note that a) the graphs above stop at 2100 and b) the median path in those graphs certainly do seem to be quickly approaching a maximum or a plateau.

Specifically, in 2060 in that graph, the median path is growing at 38 million per year. At 2080, 31 million per year. At 2100, 18 million per year.

I mean simple curve fitting is not the way to do it because the UN’s approach is going to involve tracking countless relevant variables, but that’s a curve consistent with a peak somewhere from 2120 to 2130, right?

thanks, I understood and thought it nit-picking of Moll.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Wha? That graph doesn’t even show the range I mentioned, from 2050 to 2150.

You said “within a century”, which means “before 2117”.

Having reviewed the thread, I said within a century, and later changed to “2050 to 2150”. I concede “within a century” was too bold but note that a) the graphs above stop at 2100 and b) the median path in those graphs certainly do seem to be quickly approaching a maximum or a plateau.

Specifically, in 2060 in that graph, the median path is growing at 38 million per year. At 2080, 31 million per year. At 2100, 18 million per year.

I mean simple curve fitting is not the way to do it because the UN’s approach is going to involve tracking countless relevant variables, but that’s a curve consistent with a peak somewhere from 2120 to 2130, right?

It’s ok we’re not going to crucify you for it but just be a bit more careful in the future.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

You said “within a century”, which means “before 2117”.

Having reviewed the thread, I said within a century, and later changed to “2050 to 2150”. I concede “within a century” was too bold but note that a) the graphs above stop at 2100 and b) the median path in those graphs certainly do seem to be quickly approaching a maximum or a plateau.

Specifically, in 2060 in that graph, the median path is growing at 38 million per year. At 2080, 31 million per year. At 2100, 18 million per year.

I mean simple curve fitting is not the way to do it because the UN’s approach is going to involve tracking countless relevant variables, but that’s a curve consistent with a peak somewhere from 2120 to 2130, right?

It’s ok we’re not going to crucify you for it but just be a bit more careful in the future.

That’s what they said to Jesus.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

One factor that does not seem to be considered in these projections is that in a population where people voluntarily limit the number of children that they have, on average, the offspring of the parents who have the most babies, will tend to have more than average babies, so this tendency of genes to maximise their numbers will tend to act in the opposite direction to the memes that tend to reduce the number of children.

AFAIK, no-one knows the magnitude of this effect, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t zero.

What evidence do you present that demographers do not account for this?

I didn’t present any evidence. I said it doesn’t seem to be considered because I have never seen anything suggesting that it is considered. If you have some information showing that it is considered, and describing how they go about it, that would be interesting.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

One factor that does not seem to be considered in these projections is that in a population where people voluntarily limit the number of children that they have, on average, the offspring of the parents who have the most babies, will tend to have more than average babies, so this tendency of genes to maximise their numbers will tend to act in the opposite direction to the memes that tend to reduce the number of children.

AFAIK, no-one knows the magnitude of this effect, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t zero.

What evidence do you present that demographers do not account for this?

I didn’t present any evidence. I said it doesn’t seem to be considered because I have never seen anything suggesting that it is considered. If you have some information showing that it is considered, and describing how they go about it, that would be interesting.

Point I am making is that the default assumption is that these people know what they are doing. It is infuriating for physicists when lay folk wander in and say that Einstein was wrong because red-shift is due to absorption, or to astronomers when people say the horizon moon effect is due to lensing. Experts can be wrong but they are almost always not, and you and I are both lay folk in the field of population projection.

> It is infuriating for physicists when lay folk wander in and say that Einstein was wrong because red-shift is due to absorption, or to astronomers when people say the horizon moon effect is due to lensing.

It shouldn’t be infuriating. We’ve all been there considering these as possibilities in our teens. Ditto future population. Correcting mistakes can be and should be a rewarding experience.

dv said:

Point I am making is that the default assumption is that these people know what they are doing. It is infuriating for physicists when lay folk wander in and say that Einstein was wrong because red-shift is due to absorption, or to astronomers when people say the horizon moon effect is due to lensing. Experts can be wrong but they are almost always not, and you and I are both lay folk in the field of population projection.

That’s an extraordinary thing to say. The fact is that experts are almost always wrong, in fact if you look in sufficient detail they are always wrong. The only question is whether the extent of the wrongness is significant for the matter under discussion. Very often it is not, but in cases where being wrong may have very significant adverse effects it is both reasonable and useful for non-specialists to review how the expert opinion has been arrived at, and to consider the consequences of them being wrong.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Point I am making is that the default assumption is that these people know what they are doing. It is infuriating for physicists when lay folk wander in and say that Einstein was wrong because red-shift is due to absorption, or to astronomers when people say the horizon moon effect is due to lensing. Experts can be wrong but they are almost always not, and you and I are both lay folk in the field of population projection.

That’s an extraordinary thing to say. The fact is that experts are almost always wrong, in fact if you look in sufficient detail they are always wrong. The only question is whether the extent of the wrongness is significant for the matter under discussion. Very often it is not, but in cases where being wrong may have very significant adverse effects it is both reasonable and useful for non-specialists to review how the expert opinion has been arrived at, and to consider the consequences of them being wrong.

A problem we have with discussions of this sort is that very many people want to apply the Scientific Method to an engineering problem, which is even worse than applying the Engineering Method to a scientific problem.

Final word (for now).

I think all experts should adopt and adapt the definition of structural engineering:

“Structural engineering is the art of molding materials we don’t wholly understand, into shapes we can’t fully analyze, so as to withstand forces we can’t really assess, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Final word (for now).

I think all experts should adopt and adapt the definition of structural engineering:

“Structural engineering is the art of molding materials we don’t wholly understand, into shapes we can’t fully analyze, so as to withstand forces we can’t really assess, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.”

so is that admitting you are always wrong then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Final word (for now).

I think all experts should adopt and adapt the definition of structural engineering:

“Structural engineering is the art of molding materials we don’t wholly understand, into shapes we can’t fully analyze, so as to withstand forces we can’t really assess, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.”

PMSL. As a civil/structural engineer I find that totally hilarious.

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Final word (for now).

I think all experts should adopt and adapt the definition of structural engineering:

“Structural engineering is the art of molding materials we don’t wholly understand, into shapes we can’t fully analyze, so as to withstand forces we can’t really assess, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.”

so is that admitting you are always wrong then?

No. That’s why we invented statistics.

mollwollfumble said:

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Final word (for now).

I think all experts should adopt and adapt the definition of structural engineering:

“Structural engineering is the art of molding materials we don’t wholly understand, into shapes we can’t fully analyze, so as to withstand forces we can’t really assess, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.”

so is that admitting you are always wrong then?

No. That’s why we invented statistics.

you’re not following the conversation.

:-)

I am very interested by our disagreement on this issue, Rev, mostly because we agree on so much and have fairly similar methods of analysis, usually.

I think part of it is that you and I assess these risks differently, in this case. Let’s assume that the UN projections are so out of whack that their 95% case takes place (and even if I think their work is perfect, I’d think there is a 1 in 20 chance of that happening, which is significant). This would mean the population by 2100 is over 13 billion.

I don’t fundamentally think that’s a catastrophe. It certainly could be, but it is also physically and technologically possible that there are 13 billion people in 2100 living better than ever before: healthier, happier, well nourished, with a lower environmental footprint than humanity has now. Unlike the climate change, there is no equivalent to the clathrate gun in the population growth situation, where we pass a critical point beyond which the situation is very difficult to recover.

That’s my view and I know yours is different.

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Final word (for now).

I think all experts should adopt and adapt the definition of structural engineering:

“Structural engineering is the art of molding materials we don’t wholly understand, into shapes we can’t fully analyze, so as to withstand forces we can’t really assess, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.”

so is that admitting you are always wrong then?

I already did that (being an “expert” in various fields of structural engineering).

dv said:

I am very interested by our disagreement on this issue, Rev, mostly because we agree on so much and have fairly similar methods of analysis, usually.

I think part of it is that you and I assess these risks differently, in this case. Let’s assume that the UN projections are so out of whack that their 95% case takes place (and even if I think their work is perfect, I’d think there is a 1 in 20 chance of that happening, which is significant). This would mean the population by 2100 is over 13 billion.

I don’t fundamentally think that’s a catastrophe. It certainly could be, but it is also physically and technologically possible that there are 13 billion people in 2100 living better than ever before: healthier, happier, well nourished, with a lower environmental footprint than humanity has now. Unlike the climate change, there is no equivalent to the clathrate gun in the population growth situation, where we pass a critical point beyond which the situation is very difficult to recover.

That’s my view and I know yours is different.

I have had this argument with my brother many times.
Similarly I see people saying that all the sharks in the ocean don’t equate to one human life.

It is bullshit. Get over it.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

People respond to local stimulus, though. Stable economies and growth and good institutions are correlated with declining statistical fertility. In India, flippin India, statistical fertility has declined from 3.1 in 2000 to 2.4 in 2015. It’s the same in Bangladesh.

The only parts of the globe where statistical fertility remains above 3.0 are Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sub-Saharan Africa. So a lot will depend on the level of development in economic and governmental development in sub-Saharan Africa.

Although the RATE of population growth in some countries has declined in recent years, those coloured green and above, have populations that are still increasing, although at a reduced rate.

The relationship between fertility and population is complex because there is a big lag: I mean we have a big hump left over from the post war boom, and that lump will be there til they die regardless of what the fertility rate is now.

Didn’t think the baby-boomers still had it in them. They did a lot of humping you reckon? Personally, I think the development of effective contraception would have a greater influence.

roughbarked said:

I have had this argument with my brother many times.
Similarly I see people saying that all the sharks in the ocean don’t equate to one human life.

It is bullshit. Get over it.

What is it that is bullshit that dv should get over?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Although the RATE of population growth in some countries has declined in recent years, those coloured green and above, have populations that are still increasing, although at a reduced rate.

The relationship between fertility and population is complex because there is a big lag: I mean we have a big hump left over from the post war boom, and that lump will be there til they die regardless of what the fertility rate is now.

Didn’t think the baby-boomers still had it in them. They did a lot of humping you reckon? Personally, I think the development of effective contraception would have a greater influence.

the baby boomers were the hump.

dv said:

I am very interested by our disagreement on this issue, Rev, mostly because we agree on so much and have fairly similar methods of analysis, usually.

I think part of it is that you and I assess these risks differently, in this case. Let’s assume that the UN projections are so out of whack that their 95% case takes place (and even if I think their work is perfect, I’d think there is a 1 in 20 chance of that happening, which is significant). This would mean the population by 2100 is over 13 billion.

I don’t fundamentally think that’s a catastrophe. It certainly could be, but it is also physically and technologically possible that there are 13 billion people in 2100 living better than ever before: healthier, happier, well nourished, with a lower environmental footprint than humanity has now. Unlike the climate change, there is no equivalent to the clathrate gun in the population growth situation, where we pass a critical point beyond which the situation is very difficult to recover.

That’s my view and I know yours is different.

I wonder the fact that you have young children, conjures up such a totally unrealistic view.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

The relationship between fertility and population is complex because there is a big lag: I mean we have a big hump left over from the post war boom, and that lump will be there til they die regardless of what the fertility rate is now.

Didn’t think the baby-boomers still had it in them. They did a lot of humping you reckon? Personally, I think the development of effective contraception would have a greater influence.

the baby boomers were the hump.

Whoosh! Got yer that time.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I have had this argument with my brother many times.
Similarly I see people saying that all the sharks in the ocean don’t equate to one human life.

It is bullshit. Get over it.

What is it that is bullshit that dv should get over?

At a guess, 13 billion people all living on this planet in harmony with nature. With religion you don’t have to worry, because the big fella has his finger on the problem and will work it out for us. That is, unless you go and worship some other big fella.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

Didn’t think the baby-boomers still had it in them. They did a lot of humping you reckon? Personally, I think the development of effective contraception would have a greater influence.

the baby boomers were the hump.

Whoosh! Got yer that time.

whatever.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the baby boomers were the hump.

Whoosh! Got yer that time.

whatever.

You’re slipping Boris, age must be catching up.