larger population increases now than ever

7/29/2019 Larger population increases NOW than EVER

1/5

Is population growthslowing down -

or is itfaster than ever?

Ask aNatural system


2/5

Are todays prevailing s-curve and slowing down interpretations of humankinds currentdemographics misleading,- or even fraudulently incorrect?If so, how,why,and inwhatway?

and,

When there are "icebergs out there (limits, thresholds, and tipping points) shouldn't thePASSENGERS on the vessel (especially the young passengers who may be affected most)be

honestly APPRISED of the data sets, hazards, and possible implications for themselves, theirfamilies, and their futures?

And of theeradicated worldthat their elders and today's ruling elites are about to hand them?

And the implications for theONLYplanetary life-supportmachinery so far known to exist anywhere in the universe?

This article is being written because, over and over again, and almost unfailingly, we hear decidedly dan-gerous and seriously-misleadingproclamationsfrom assorted demographers, economists, and non-sci-

ence sectors of academia who commonly employ a misleading statistical assertionin order to suggest to

Demographics, human history,

S-curves, and J-curves

Two graphs and twointerpretations

which should we heed?


3/5

their audiences of readers, viewers, listeners, policymakers, students, and journalists that the worldsrate of population growth is somehow slowing down.

As one recent example, envision an academic who cites a one-sided statistical appraisal(as follows) that seemingly

invites complacent slowing down interpretations with a bland assertion that world population growth peaked at

over 2% per year duringthe1960s.

(Notice that such assertions seem to suggest to readers and listeners that Earthsworld population situation must

supposedly be somehow getting better, or is improving, or to suppose or imagine that population-environment crisis

conditions must somehow be easing or that serious troubles must somehow have become a thing of the past.)

(We have also seen plenary speakers at recent world conferences, for example,

who seem to offer exactly such one-sided appraisals to their worldwide audiences.)

In one sense, of course, while appraisals like those above are (from one technical statistical perspective),somewhatorpartially-correct from a technical perspective, they are, at the same time and in a far-deepersense, dangerously-misleadingand/orseriouslyor entirely incorrect (or even deliberately deceptive?) in

that they contain a decidedly-fraudulent untruth which

CONCEALS, HIDES, and OMITShumankindsaactuala, collective, and continuingworldwide numerical avalanche of real-world population growththat is unlike

anything our planet has ever had to deal with in human history.

Thus, should such seemingly-reassuring slowing-rate appraisals offered up bysomequarters of academia be left to stand alone, to guide policy, or to stand unchallenged?

Or shouldnt they be challenged?

Answer:

We challenge them here and now,beginning as follows:

1981: Humankinds unprecedented worldwide population of roughly 4.5 billionwas growing

largerat a rate of approximately 80 million extrapersonsper year.

2012:Humankinds worldwide populationnow exceeds 7billion(2.5 BILLION LARGERthan it was threedecades earlier) and is nowgrowinglargerat a rate of approximately 83 millionextrapersonsper year

See article addenda for an example of the truly enormoussize of each

such billion - (Hint: For each such billion the answer is 38,461years)

Imagine a bus that was approaching a cliff at 80 km/hr, but, having failed to take adequate measures, now

finds itself to be not only far closerto the cliff, but also now finds itself careening over the precipice at 83 km/hr.

Is that slowing down?

To deceive and calm the passengers, however (and preserve business as usual) the driversand management employ misleading statistical assertions to assure everyone that their bus is

resilient and impediments to ongoing progress are not needed.

Notice therefore, that if we ignore the statisticians sleight-of-hand and instead evaluate humankinds

AACTUALLreal-worldworldwide growth in actual numbers, various plenary speakers and economic

demographers might better (and more honestly and correctly?) have stated that


4/5

Despitetthirty yearssof discussions, peer-reviewed papers, development theory,

international conferences,(and tons of money),not onlyare we impactingour planets life-support machinery with a population that is

2.5 billion LARGER than it was beforee

but in addition, today each years

yActual increaseyin worldwide population

together with our collective and ever-widening,worsening, and accumulating impacts

N is even FASTER NOW (and WORSE NOW) than it was in 1981R

This latter view, as enunciated above, and as shocking as it may seem to economists and some quarters ofacademia, actually far mo re accuratelyconveys the unfolding biological and biospheric dangers and

calamities that our continuing J-curve trajectories invite.

Perhaps, however, Earths biospheric life-support machinery and naturalsystems should be forgivenfor never having takena statistics course.

It is, after all, theFAULTof those silly biospheric life-support systems for never having taken a statistics

course, isnt it? For if they had, they would realize that the ever-wideningand ever-worseningand ever-

accumulatinglevels of damage, wastes, and eradicationsthat theythink they are experiencingare sim-

ply an illusion or a temporary inconvenienceon a happy road to sustainabilityand planetary harmony(with adaptation, peace, justice, mitigation, and resilience for all).

After all, those poor, silly little NSFEs (Natural-Systems-Functioning-Entities) are so uneducated, that un-

like many statisticians, economists, and demographers, they just dont realizethatSEVEN billionnowand

83,000,000 extra per year now -S(as opposed to 4.5 billion back in 1981 and 80,000,000 extra per year

back in 1981) - is supposed to constitute some sort of slowing down.

See article addenda for a mathematical example of the truly enormoussize of each such billion. (Hint: The answer is38,461years)

In one sense, of course, both descriptions (the 2% peak in the 1960s and todaysEven faster-than-in

1981 description) can both be defended in a technical sense The trouble is, however, that in todaysaca-demia (and media and policymaker circles), theproffered 2% peak in the 1960s embodies a decidedly-

fraudulent untruth, while at the same time, the Even faster-than-in 1981 descriptionis omitted, unack-

nowledged or is not so much as mentioned.

Thus, if policymakers, citizens, students, and humankinds rising generations of under-20sare offered

ONLYthe 2% peak perspective (and are shielded from the equally and far-more correct Even faster-

than-in-1981 perspective), then theenormityof the biospheric, biological, and ecological damage,

challenges, wastes, and eradications are obscured.


5/5

(And multiple independent lines of powerful evidence suggest that we

may already be approaching or already-entering too-late conditions.)

Summarizing part one, we suggest that

When there are "icebergs out there(limits, thresholds, and tipping points) shouldn't the

PASSENGERS on the vessel (especially the young passengers who may be affected most)behonestly APPRISED of the data sets, hazards, and possible implications for themselves, their

families, and their futures?And of the eradicated world that their elders and

today's ruling elites are about to hand them?

As well as the implications for theeONLYplanetary life-supportmachinery so far known to exist anywhere in the universe?

larger population increases now than ever

Documents