Reply to: Have we done...

[Old Greg]

There's no point. Vet is just trolling. He knows he's thick, it was pointed out to him at school and nothing's changed.

Tragically, he isn't trolling.

Oh, and update your sig, you lazy fvcker.

[vetran]

This is one of the ramifications of the demographic transition model. When death rates fall you have a 60-100 year window with low death rates & high birth rates that causes a population explosion. It happened here, the population tripled in the UK between 1801 and 1881. It took the next 100 years for it to double again. Asia and South America have been going through this over the last 50 years or so, hence most of the extra 3.5 billion people since 1960 are in Asia, where the population has quadrupled, and Latin America which has seen a large multiplication but from a small base.

The UN paper predicts another 4 billion people or so. Most of these are in Africa, where it's predicted the population will more than double in the next 40 years and triple in the next 100, and in undeveloped but populous parts of Asia where they predict India will see another 500 million people by 2050, as well as large growth in Pakistan & Indonesia. It's not like they haven't factored in rapid population growth in all of the places you are talking about.

Thank you, that makes sense.
Lets meet back in 87 years and review

[doodab]

Doodab appreciate you trying to explain.

Yes 1950 - present day is fact and the fall in birth rate is only a small part of the data that has occurred relatively recently.

World Population Clock: 7 Billion People (2013) - Worldometers

look in the last 200 years population has grown 7 fold, since 1960 it has more than doubled.

Yet you expect it to grow by a 10% between 2050-2100?

Projections 37 years ahead are then used to build projections for 87 years ahead.

These are based on decline of birth rates in a subset of the countries involved. The situation is different in the LEDCs almost anything could cause the population growth to change.


The change in 63 years have been so great nobody expected them. There was 'no reason' to expect 60 years ago population growth would fall, in fact we were expecting to expand to the stars.

If you look at the growth rate charts there was a 1% peak in 1960 - why was that? Could it happen again?

So 1.3B growth in 37- 87 years time is a bit tenuous.It depends a great deal on the population in 37 years time! I personally believe it will be higher and that the adjustments will take longer.

Whether it is in Africa, Pakistan or even Britain (as today's news shows) where figures buck the trends I'm not sure but the risks seem higher in the non democratic LEDCs as some religions encourage large families, though European Catholics seem to have amended their preference for larger families, Islam specifically encourages it and so many LEDCs are heavily Muslim. Note I have avoided specifying countries.

I do believe religion & culture will have a major effect, for instance if the Pope tells the Catholics to breed then a good portion of them will.

I don't blindly accept birth rates will decline in the same way as they are currently in some countries when it has changed so much in the last 87 years. I do accept the decline will be part of the equation.

This is one of the ramifications of the demographic transition model. When death rates fall you have a 60-100 year window with low death rates & high birth rates that causes a population explosion. It happened here, the population tripled in the UK between 1801 and 1881. It took the next 100 years for it to double again. Asia and South America have been going through this over the last 50 years or so, hence most of the extra 3.5 billion people since 1960 are in Asia, where the population has quadrupled, and Latin America which has seen a large multiplication but from a small base.

The UN paper predicts another 4 billion people or so. Most of these are in Africa, where it's predicted the population will more than double in the next 40 years and triple in the next 100, and in undeveloped but populous parts of Asia where they predict India will see another 500 million people by 2050, as well as large growth in Pakistan & Indonesia. It's not like they haven't factored in rapid population growth in all of the places you are talking about.

[vetran]

It would appear he had a point. The 1.3Bn comes from 10.9Bn (2100) minus 9.6Bn (2050), making a growth of 1.3Bn in 50 years. You seem to have got this conflated with the estimates for the total population.

I'm not sure why you think 10.9Bn is so unreasonable. As has been pointed out, the global rate of population growth peaked some time ago and has been declining for 50 years. There is simply no reason whatsoever to think the trend will reverse, and even if you just do the most simplistic thing possible and extrapolate the current rate of decline you find that global population will peak around 2080.

Your thinking seems to be founded entirely on the idea that population will increase exponentially in sub saharan Africa, when all the evidence is that in those countries where the death rate is coming under control a similar demographic transition is happening as has happened or is in progress pretty much everywhere else in the world.



The data 1950-present day is not a projection, it is a FACT. The decline in birth rates and in the rate of population growth since the 60s is not a projection, it is a FACT. The correlation between death and birth rates is a FACT. The falling birth rates for years in many of the countries you seem to think are going to have a population explosion is a FACT.

A sharp fall in birth rates over the 60-100 years or so after a precipitous fall in the death rate has been observed in many countries, it may have first been observed in western countries but the fact is that the same phenomenon has occurred or is occurring in many other countries since then including several in the middle east & Africa as well as most of SE Asia and South America. The FACTS are there to support it.

Doodab appreciate you trying to explain.

Yes 1950 - present day is fact and the fall in birth rate is only a small part of the data that has occurred relatively recently.

World Population Clock: 7 Billion People (2013) - Worldometers

look in the last 200 years population has grown 7 fold, since 1960 it has more than doubled.

Yet you expect it to grow by a 10% between 2050-2100?

Projections 37 years ahead are then used to build projections for 87 years ahead.

These are based on decline of birth rates in a subset of the countries involved. The situation is different in the LEDCs almost anything could cause the population growth to change.


The change in 63 years have been so great nobody expected them. There was 'no reason' to expect 60 years ago population growth would fall, in fact we were expecting to expand to the stars.

If you look at the growth rate charts there was a 1% peak in 1960 - why was that? Could it happen again?

So 1.3B growth in 37- 87 years time is a bit tenuous.It depends a great deal on the population in 37 years time! I personally believe it will be higher and that the adjustments will take longer.

Whether it is in Africa, Pakistan or even Britain (as today's news shows) where figures buck the trends I'm not sure but the risks seem higher in the non democratic LEDCs as some religions encourage large families, though European Catholics seem to have amended their preference for larger families, Islam specifically encourages it and so many LEDCs are heavily Muslim. Note I have avoided specifying countries.

I do believe religion & culture will have a major effect, for instance if the Pope tells the Catholics to breed then a good portion of them will.

I don't blindly accept birth rates will decline in the same way as they are currently in some countries when it has changed so much in the last 87 years. I do accept the decline will be part of the equation.

[sasguru]

It would appear he had a point. The 1.3Bn comes from 10.9Bn (2100) minus 9.6Bn (2050), making a growth of 1.3Bn in 50 years. You seem to have got this conflated with the estimates for the total population.

I'm not sure why you think 10.9Bn is so unreasonable. As has been pointed out, the global rate of population growth peaked some time ago and has been declining for 50 years. There is simply no reason whatsoever to think the trend will reverse, and even if you just do the most simplistic thing possible and extrapolate the current rate of decline you find that global population will peak around 2080.

Your thinking seems to be founded entirely on the idea that population will increase exponentially in sub saharan Africa, when all the evidence is that in those countries where the death rate is coming under control a similar demographic transition is happening as has happened or is in progress pretty much everywhere else in the world.



The data 1950-present day is not a projection, it is a FACT. The decline in birth rates and in the rate of population growth since the 60s is not a projection, it is a FACT. The correlation between death and birth rates is a FACT. The falling birth rates for years in many of the countries you seem to think are going to have a population explosion is a FACT.

A sharp fall in birth rates over the 60-100 years or so after a precipitous fall in the death rate has been observed in many countries, it may have first been observed in western countries but the fact is that the same phenomenon has occurred or is occurring in many other countries since then including several in the middle east & Africa as well as most of SE Asia and South America. The FACTS are there to support it.

There's no point. Vet is just trolling. He knows he's thick, it was pointed out to him at school and nothing's changed.

[sasguru]

so you are happy to insult people but unwilling and unable to accept insults back.

Sums you up in so many little ways.

Eh? Seems like that describes you.
You called me a cretin I called you a turd. Where's your beef?
But on second thoughts, thick turd is more like it.

[doodab]

Actually Red Sauce quoted 1.3B, I questioned it as low even to what SAS was initially suggesting. SAS then called me a moron and a lowly paid BA who couldn't understand the facts and supported Red Sauces figures.

I think 10Bn is optimistic because its based on experience of a completely different type of country something mentioned in the research, 1.3B growth is laughable but that is what started SAS's attacks so I'm taking that as his base line.

It would appear he had a point. The 1.3Bn comes from 10.9Bn (2100) minus 9.6Bn (2050), making a growth of 1.3Bn in 50 years. You seem to have got this conflated with the estimates for the total population.

I'm not sure why you think 10.9Bn is so unreasonable. As has been pointed out, the global rate of population growth peaked some time ago and has been declining for 50 years. There is simply no reason whatsoever to think the trend will reverse, and even if you just do the most simplistic thing possible and extrapolate the current rate of decline you find that global population will peak around 2080.

Your thinking seems to be founded entirely on the idea that population will increase exponentially in sub saharan Africa, when all the evidence is that in those countries where the death rate is coming under control a similar demographic transition is happening as has happened or is in progress pretty much everywhere else in the world.

They aren't facts they are projections, based on 60 years of rapid change after centuries of steadily growing population. All it takes is for China to change the 1 child policy or a large LEDC decide they want more children and the projections are blown out of the water.

The data 1950-present day is not a projection, it is a FACT. The decline in birth rates and in the rate of population growth since the 60s is not a projection, it is a FACT. The correlation between death and birth rates is a FACT. The falling birth rates for years in many of the countries you seem to think are going to have a population explosion is a FACT.

A sharp fall in birth rates over the 60-100 years or so after a precipitous fall in the death rate has been observed in many countries, it may have first been observed in western countries but the fact is that the same phenomenon has occurred or is occurring in many other countries since then including several in the middle east & Africa as well as most of SE Asia and South America. The FACTS are there to support it.

[eek]

You're like a turd that vetran (sic) leaves behind everywhere he goes.

so you are happy to insult people but unwilling and unable to accept insults back.

Sums you up in so many little ways.

[vetran]

You're like a turd that vetran (sic) leaves behind everywhere he goes.

Mummy Says "wash your mouth out with soap".

[sasguru]

King Cretin speaks again.

You're like a turd that vetran (sic) leaves behind everywhere he goes.

[eek]

You probably don't realise this at all but you're only confirming with each post how cretinous you are, even by CUK standards.
If there was any doubt, your posts remove it.
So do keep posting

King Cretin speaks again.

[sasguru]

Actually Red Sauce quoted 1.3B, I questioned it as low even to what SAS was initially suggesting. SAS then called me a moron and a lowly paid BA who couldn't understand the facts and supported Red Sauces figures.

I think 10Bn is optimistic because its based on experience of a completely different type of country something mentioned in the research, 1.3B growth is laughable but that is what started SAS's attacks so I'm taking that as his base line.


They aren't facts they are projections, based on 60 years of rapid change after centuries of steadily growing population. All it takes is for China to change the 1 child policy or a large LEDC decide they want more children and the projections are blown out of the water.

That was my entire point, 'IT DEPENDS, but my money is on more rather than less'.

You probably don't realise this at all but you're only confirming with each post how cretinous you are, even by CUK standards.
If there was any doubt, your posts remove it.
So do keep posting

But the others are right, you're too stupid to debate with. So have a nice life.

[vetran]

Why? Nobody has quoted the low end estimate. Oh, you think that 10 odd billion is the low end estimate? So you didn't read the actual report that the figure came from which has loads of facts in it? It's a bit hypocritical of you to complain that other people haven't read what you posted then isn't it?

I have tried, but I have to say, the others are right. It doesn't seem to matter how many facts you are presented with because you don't actually notice them. You are seemingly too lazy and/or stupid to be worth engaging with.

Actually Red Sauce quoted 1.3B, I questioned it as low even to what SAS was initially suggesting. SAS then called me a moron and a lowly paid BA who couldn't understand the facts and supported Red Sauces figures.

I think 10Bn is optimistic because its based on experience of a completely different type of country something mentioned in the research, 1.3B growth is laughable but that is what started SAS's attacks so I'm taking that as his base line.


They aren't facts they are projections, based on 60 years of rapid change after centuries of steadily growing population. All it takes is for China to change the 1 child policy or a large LEDC decide they want more children and the projections are blown out of the water.

That was my entire point, 'IT DEPENDS, but my money is on more rather than less'.

[Old Greg]

Why? Nobody has quoted the low end estimate. Oh, you think that 10 odd billion is the low end estimate? So you didn't read the actual report that the figure came from which has loads of facts in it? It's a bit hypocritical of you to complain that other people haven't read what you posted then isn't it?

I have tried, but I have to say, the others are right. It doesn't seem to matter how many facts you are presented with because you don't actually notice them. You are seemingly too lazy and/or stupid to be worth engaging with.

It's a bit unfair to suggest he may be lazy.

[doodab]

Still waiting for some facts that support the low end estimate as likely.

Why? Nobody has quoted the low end estimate. Oh, you think that 10 odd billion is the low end estimate? So you didn't read the actual report that the figure came from which has loads of facts in it? It's a bit hypocritical of you to complain that other people haven't read what you posted then isn't it?

I have tried, but I have to say, the others are right. It doesn't seem to matter how many facts you are presented with because you don't actually notice them. You are seemingly too lazy and/or stupid to be worth engaging with.