Still increasing, so how many need to die in real time for the counter to fall in real time? over this year.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

135,604,800 deaths would mean no population growth this year.

Wrong side of the equation. Deaths don't help as long as there are still so many births. We need a lot of fewer births

NineBerry wrote:Wrong side of the equation. Deaths don't help as long as there are still so many births. We need a lot of fewer births

Life-expectancy was in a near steady state. Now it is in decline, does that make a difference?

aufbahrung wrote:Still increasing, so how many need to die in real time for the counter to fall in real time? over this year.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

More than are being born.

aufbahrung wrote:Now [Life-expectancy ] is in decline

Is that true?

Thommo wrote:

aufbahrung wrote:Now [Life-expectancy ] is in decline

Is that true?

Well, mine is declining at a rate of 24 hours per day.

My 'now' is for the average lifespan of this thread, which I put at two or three years or less than that....and I'm assuming the trade collapse makes finding a cure for corona im[possible].

aufbahrung wrote:My 'now' is for the average lifespan of this thread, which I put at two or three years or less than that....and I'm assuming the trade collapse makes finding a cure for corona im[possible].

The data sets here: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy , seem to suggest that pandemics, world wars and market crashes had little effect on the overall trend of life expectancy during the 20th century.

Last year I created a spreadsheet to address the question of population growth. Using figures from the UN and Worldometers I arrived at this:
At the end of 2018:
World pop. 7,631,092,040
Total births: 149,204,000 (1.95521% of world pop.)
Total deaths: 57,625,000 (0.75513% of world pop.)
Pop. increase: 91,979,000 (1.2% of world pop.)
This gives a birth/death factor of 2.5892. Using the birth/death percentage figures as a change from year to year (these will obviously vary - but not by much, I suspect), over the next 100 years the population will increase to just under 25 billion (which is silly). Obviously something must happen before that figure is reached: A drastic reduction in births and/or a drastic increase in deaths.
In 1951 the world pop. was 2,584,034,261. The present population gives an increase of over 5 billion in just under 70 years. To reduce the population to the 1951 figure will require a reduction of about 74 million per year for 70 years. Which with a birth rate of zero is higher than the present death rate - which is a nonsense.
The present pandemic (and future ones) will have little effect. The present Covid-19 death rate (today) is 0.0054% of the world population.
There have been various 'studies' which have suggested that the population will stabilize and 'level off' at about 11 billion (or thereabouts - the figures vary). What none of these 'studies' have defined is how births will 'suddenly' equal deaths or how deaths will 'suddenly' increase by over 2.5 times (or a mixture of both)...
I'm having a Soylent Green moment here...

Double post.

aufbahrung wrote:I'm assuming the trade collapse makes finding a cure for corona im[possible].

Right.

Alan B wrote:Last year I created a spreadsheet to address the question of population growth. Using figures from the UN and Worldometers I arrived at this:
At the end of 2018:
World pop. 7,631,092,040
Total births: 149,204,000 (1.95521% of world pop.)
Total deaths: 57,625,000 (0.75513% of world pop.)
Pop. increase: 91,979,000 (1.2% of world pop.)
This gives a birth/death factor of 2.5892. Using the birth/death percentage figures as a change from year to year (these will obviously vary - but not by much, I suspect), over the next 100 years the population will increase to just under 25 billion (which is silly). Obviously something must happen before that figure is reached: A drastic reduction in births and/or a drastic increase in deaths.
In 1951 the world pop. was 2,584,034,261. The present population gives an increase of over 5 billion in just under 70 years. To reduce the population to the 1951 figure will require a reduction of about 74 million per year for 70 years. Which with a birth rate of zero is higher than the present death rate - which is a nonsense.
The present pandemic (and future ones) will have little effect. The present Covid-19 death rate (today) is 0.0054% of the world population.
There have been various 'studies' which have suggested that the population will stabilize and 'level off' at about 11 billion (or thereabouts - the figures vary). What none of these 'studies' have defined is how births will 'suddenly' equal deaths or how deaths will 'suddenly' increase by over 2.5 times (or a mixture of both)...
I'm having a Soylent Green moment here...

Births will not suddenly equal deaths, but they have closed in on it over the past half a century. Fertility rates have in fact halved in that time and there is no evidence for that downward trend to stop.

What is the cause of the transition from the past to "Projection" being accompanied by a sudden, almost vertical, drop in the growth rate?

newolder wrote:What is the cause of the transition from the past to "Projection" being accompanied by a sudden, almost vertical, drop in the growth rate?

Looking at the chart, the sudden, almost vertical, drop in the growth rate did not coincide with the point that divides past and projection. It appears to have commenced its precipitous dive somewhere around 1962.

It looks like 2015 to me and matches exactly with the transition.

UN projections are way off.

snip

But they always compensate with it when they look at the developing world. Well, John and I looked at the developing world and looked at the statistics and travelled to the developing world to look at what was going on — and [they're] not having as many babies as we think they are.

So, for example, India now — which everybody assumes has a huge fertility advantage over other countries — well, the Lancet just came up with a major demographic study that was published in November that showed it's [the birth rate] down to 2.1, just at replacement level.

China, as we already know, is at 1.5, but there's other demographers that say it's probably even lower than that.

So that's 40 per cent of the world's population. If kids aren't being born at the rate you need them to be to replace the population in those two places, it's not going to get to 11.2 billion. It's impossible for it to happen.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-4 ... -1.5009923

i'm not sure population dynamics are possible to see if you believe in the planks constant and that human conception is less than that in its conceiving. Perhaps I'm missing the random determinate here?

The constant thickness of 2 short planks, or are you thinking of something other? Perhaps you are missing more than you can determine, here?