![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JadenGordon1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Article tends to emphasizes the short term, which causes the "wealthy" countries to appear least responsible for population growth. Note that the U.S. Population Growth over last 100 years = 1.22% per year average or 336% total growth. The World Population Growth over last 100 years = 1.38 % per year average or 394% total. Not much of a difference. Despite what perpetual growth and religious people want to believe, we have a population problem nearly everywhere. 108.74.220.143 ( talk) 21:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The formula makes no sense at all to me. Compare with this:
Am I wrong with this? If not, then the formula given in the article simply states that Population growth ratio is the same as its rate, which is certainly not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.6.194.168 ( talk) 13:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you think it should be? Did you notice the next paragraph which I wrote over a year ago? For a sufficiently small time period, or small growth rate, it is close enough. Yours is the first comment related to the formula since I added the (sufficiently small time period) modification, and the following paragraph.
Gah4 (
talk) 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I added the word 'unit' to the first paragraph, but not (yet) to the equation. The equation as written is, in general, not correct. If the growth rate is measured as growth per year (as is usual), the time period in the equation given must be one year. Given: , and the population at two time points, and , , , and finally . For sufficiently small , the equation given near the top of the page is correct, but in general it is not. I am not ready to change it yet, anyone else want to comment? Gah4 ( talk) 21:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The equation is non-sense as it is now:
The dimension of (per capita) growth rate should have time in the denominator, as it is a rate. According to the equation, growth rate is dimensionless. Better is
OpenScience ( talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yours is the first comment on the equation since I added the (for sufficiently small...).
I wanted to make it
and was waiting for someone else to comment on it. I thought it would come in days or weeks, though. Otherwise, I believe that in some sense the time period is implied, and so not stated, usually one year. Gah4 ( talk) 10:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
We supposedly ""Evolved"" around a 100 000 years ago ........... look at the graph and be logical . If we evolved 100 000 years ago our population would be absolutley ginormous . Working it back the human population has been growing only a few thousand years. Look at the graph or do the logarithmic calculations quickly (ok granted your calculations won't be perfect but they'll give you a ball park figure) Certianly doesn't look like a hundred thousand years to me. Rather supports a flood 4400 years ago. ( Paladin)
I suppose so, but it is a big leap without any supporting evidence. A higher death rate in early populations would also account for the difference. There are many variables in the human growth curve to consider. Gah4 ( talk) 16:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
....I was under the impression that Wikipedia was NOT the place for religious debates. While I am Christian myself, this is most certainly NOT the place to say that one does not believe in evolution and force your beliefs on others. Besides, it's perfectly possible to be Christian and believe in evolution. Oh, and, no, the population would NOT be "absolutely ginormous". It is only in recent years that we have been able to lower the death rate from fairly common diseases and, for the most part, eliminate epidemics of life-threatening sicknesses, oh, and we've learned quite a bit about nutrition. And consider the lives that wars have taken, too. Stars in the Night Sky 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi , I was merley making a personal observation which as far as I understand im allowed to do (I wasn't under the impression that I have to believe in evolution to comment on wikipedia). Neither was I forcing my "beliefs" on anyone . As it happens im not even a "short day creationist" ! However looking at the evidence im beginning to lean that way . I also know you can be a Christian and believe in evolution , as I used to ! I used to go with theistic evolution however after looking at the arguments and looking at evolution I decided that it was fatally flawed, so I no longer believe in it . Also on the points you made the function is exponetial . Also I don't think they had such great sanitation or medical science 1000 years ago , however even looking at that graph, that is when it begins to rise rapidly. Granted it has sored in that last few years proably significantly because of the reasons you mentioned . However I feel the populaiton should atleast be significantly higher a long time before that point (its not even readable !) if homosapiens "emerged" 100 000 years ago (In my opinion). Look at rats etc. and how they multiply , we have a great advantage over them , in the fact that we are to perceive when we run out of food and space and can move. God bless you, Paladin 14:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
POPULATION GROWTH IS HOW FAST THE RATE OF THE PEOPLE IS GOING UP. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THATS HOW OUR NUMBERS MULTIPLY AND HOW WE KEEP THE COUNT IF EVERYONE.
Uh, aren't the rate of population growth and the population growth rate very different things? One is a derivative of the other, right?
world population get? How will the transition from current rapid growth phase to a sustainable stable phase occur? Will this be an easy or difficult transition? -- Huysman talk| contribs 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The citation request on this assertion: "It has been proposed by many that population growth, if not controlled, could lead to a situation where demands for resources outstrip their ready availability (i.e., overpopulation).[citation needed]"
is unneeded. It's completely obvious after a moment's thought. In fact, the original statement is too timid. If you have 500 people a day crowded around a well that can supply water for 200 people a day, you've got a problem. This is not a theory, it's simple common sense. So, rather than a citation, the article should be expanded to include a little basic logic about fruit-fly-type scenarios.
Hi, as an economist on development I may say common sense is not always the best way to proof a statement. I know it is hard to accept but the same happened to me some time ago. Just a couple of references for you and for those who want to think out of the 'imposed' box: 'The Ultimate Resource 2" by Julian Simon, 1996 ( ISBN 0-691-04269-1) and 'The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World' by Bjørn Lomborg [there is an article in Wikipedia]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.140.211 ( talk) 08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not common sense, but is a property of the math of exponential growth. The Wheat_and_chessboard_problem is a favorite example of how difficult it is to understand exponential growth. I do agree, though, that no citation is needed. It should be easy to see that at current growth rates the population will be unsustainable in a relatively short number of years (on almost any other human time scale). Gah4 ( talk) 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed "natural increase" redirects to this page. It should have its own page because it does not include migration. So really, a country's population growth and natural increase can be quite different, such as in Canada, where more of the population growth is actually from immigration. 69.158.163.223 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The first graph should be logarithmic. — Omegatron 21:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
WaynaQhapaq ( talk) 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The second graph ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Growth.png/800px-Growth.png) draws a "smoothed" line through the data. Though this may look nice, it misleads the reader in that it shows the population dropping between 2010 and 2015. Such a drop conflicts with later graphs that show always-positive growth rates during this time period. This graph should be redrawn with straight lines between data points or no lines at all. JDHeinzmann ( talk) 03:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The real question is, Where will population be in 50 or 100 years? The first plot shown gives us no idea what that will be. It shows everything running up along the right hand side of the plot and bunched up in the upper right corner. You need scales that will allow for orders of magnitude changes in the numbers, i.e., log-log scales. An exponential function will plot out as linear on a logarithmic scale. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 22:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
"However, the world's fastest growing race are Hispanic/Latino origin, who make up 44% of the world's population growth per year..."
What exactly is the purpose of this statement? Considering that "race" itself is a dubious concept, and that "Hispanic/Latino race" a completely unrecognized one in serious scholarship, the statement seem to have been inserted by a US anti-immigrant nativist. I am removing it.
199.115.9.254 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a single thing in here about the causes of population growth, or the effects. There is a very small piece on the causes and effects of the shrinking population in some areas, but not a thing about the causes and effects of actual population growth. There's nothing about how there's a theory that it's affecting global warming, or anything else. Stars in the Night Sky 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think population growth was okay in the past, but now it seems to be turning out bad because if the population grows forever, we would all run out of room to survive. China itself is rather crowded, that's why the law says in China, you may only have one baby. 66.191.115.61 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Cbsteffen
how does the population have to do with the death rate or birth rate i just don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willie92 ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
the question is that if you implment such a law in say europe that already suffers from ethnic population decline while the thirdworld will brush it off , what will happen? the fact is india and the third world are responsible for most of the population growth since they can't reach transition and no one but people of such origin are responsible . china should make their one child policy softer as well since it will explode in their faces when people reach out of working age with no ss. 79.176.49.28 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
Existing sentence:
It's not the growth that can exceed the carrying capacity, it's the population itself. I'm not sure how to edit it, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just responding to the notice about Tone or Style, as a person who googled for this specific topic, what I was looking for was "World population" and the estimates over the centuries. I think this article at the moment mentions "carrying capacity" / overpopulation too early; and this article should discuss theories on causes of population effect instead of "overpopulation" that already has its own article title. All best. :) 122.106.228.67 ( talk) 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The growth rate formula should be of the form . Also, as stated above by 222.6.194.168, the formula "growth ratio = 100%*growth rate" is meaningless to me. What is intended by this statement? Spiel496 ( talk) 07:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, the book Introduction to Geography by Getis & Getis talks about population momentum. This article does not mention this momentum effect that increases population well into the future despite slowing of growth to the replacement level. This effect should be mentioned in the article, because without it people will think that decline to the replacement will be okay and all problems are solved. -- 212.226.66.147 ( talk) 07:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
In the table in the section "1960s to 2010 table of population growth" Australia's population is indicated "23,215,635[37] (2010)" - which is garbage. On the indicated source it is indicated per 26/03/2013, 12:00 hrs. it is indicated as 22,960,198. The maintainer of the table will please revise the issue. Thank you. 121.216.246.119 ( talk) 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I am slowly beginning to understand what the author is trying to accomplish with the mathematical description. The question is: given a set of population data spanning a certain time period, how is Population Growth Rate or PGR computed? The first equation given is actually a simple difference equation based on the Malthusian exponential model of population growth.
The fundamental equation for Malthusian population change is given by , where is the population, , is the growth rate, and is time. This is a differential equation that can be solved by separating variables and integrating.
where is a constant tying the equation to a particular historical era.
An approximate value for is obtained by computing an incremental difference between two time points baased on the form of the original differential equation, i.e.,
The validity of the approximation will depend on time increment between data points especially if is changing with time (as in the Red-Blue graph). The convoluted math in that initial section is wrong and should be deleted. If the logarithmic form is justified, it deserves a better exposition than is given. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 00:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
From the Malthus Model:
At some arbitrary time point,
At another point nearby,
From this,
The logarithmic form is therefore correct for small increments in time. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 16:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
To account for the linear growth rate trend shown in the Red-Blue graph, the Malthus model must modified as follows:
Where is population, is time, is the population change rate at some reference time, , and is the slope of the rate curve. Integrating and applying limits:
Where is population at the reference time, .
Referring to the Red-Blue graph,
The time at which is
The maximum population will occur in 2010 + 70 or 2080 and
Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 17:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Living matter remains remains fairly constant, I once read, but human population growth progressively transforms more and more of that into human flesh.t I don't know enough about the subject to do a proper search for a reference, much less if any other editor would think it pertinent. — Pawyilee ( talk) 10:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"For example, since the US population was 2 million in 1927, and 5 million in 1987, the growth rate, using the above formula, is (5-2)/2, or 1.5." This sentence is in the article. But US population in 1927 was nearer 150 million, rather than 2 million. Shouldn't this blatant error be fixed?Doug1943 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Population growth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Population growth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Population growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Population growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Population growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this revert: the content removed from the lede was non-neutrally presented and poorly sourced. Some of these issues are hopefully obvious, but one example is that lone source was the CIA factbook entry for Barbados cited for information on Chad. Regardless, the source makes no reference to the country's population change being itself noteworthy, or caused by anything noteworthy. It also does not use any scare-mongering or editorialize on vaguely Malthusian fears of "straining resources". Please do not restore this again.
Population growth is complicated, but if this specific "fear" somehow belongs in the lede of this article, instead of at human overpopulation where it logically belongs, it would need to be a neutral summary of specific, reliable sources, not WP:SYNTH based on context-free factoids. Grayfell ( talk) 07:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Can we use this a citation in the article, rather than have it in external links?-- Buzles ( talk) 07:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Also this one. Can't it be used as a citation? -- Buzles ( talk) 07:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-rates?tab=chart&time=1950..2030&country=~OWID_WRL ″Data published by United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects: The 2019 Revision, DVD Edition.″ Link https://population.un.org/wpp2019/Download/Standard/Interpolated/
vs
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.pop.grow ″Population growth (annual %) Derived from total population. Population source: ( 1 ) United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects: 2019 Revision, ( 2 ) Census reports and other statistical publications from national statistical offices, ( 3 ) Eurostat: Demographic Statistics, ( 4 ) United Nations Statistical Division. Population and Vital Statistics Report ( various years ), ( 5 ) U.S. Census Bureau: International Database, and ( 6 ) Secretariat of the Pacific Community: Statistics and Demography Programme.″ License : CC BY-4.0
Or is the UN 2019 Revision alone all of that and national sources being distracting noises because of the reasoning "a unitary, global organization can coordinate those data better"?
I assume the more legitimate sources the better for World Bank. Charles.enb.cdefgh ( talk)
Adding: Introduction shows "peak of 2.2% per year in 1963." [Roser, Max; Ritchie, Hannah; Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban (2013-05-09). "World Population Growth". Our World in Data.](Data sources: US Census Bureau & Projections: U. N. Pop. Divi. {Medium Variant 2015 Revision} & https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#how-has-the-world-population-growth-rate-changed too even through theres´s a Population Division (2019). Why? Cren182 ( talk) 09:19, 04 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JadenGordon1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Article tends to emphasizes the short term, which causes the "wealthy" countries to appear least responsible for population growth. Note that the U.S. Population Growth over last 100 years = 1.22% per year average or 336% total growth. The World Population Growth over last 100 years = 1.38 % per year average or 394% total. Not much of a difference. Despite what perpetual growth and religious people want to believe, we have a population problem nearly everywhere. 108.74.220.143 ( talk) 21:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The formula makes no sense at all to me. Compare with this:
Am I wrong with this? If not, then the formula given in the article simply states that Population growth ratio is the same as its rate, which is certainly not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.6.194.168 ( talk) 13:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you think it should be? Did you notice the next paragraph which I wrote over a year ago? For a sufficiently small time period, or small growth rate, it is close enough. Yours is the first comment related to the formula since I added the (sufficiently small time period) modification, and the following paragraph.
Gah4 (
talk) 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I added the word 'unit' to the first paragraph, but not (yet) to the equation. The equation as written is, in general, not correct. If the growth rate is measured as growth per year (as is usual), the time period in the equation given must be one year. Given: , and the population at two time points, and , , , and finally . For sufficiently small , the equation given near the top of the page is correct, but in general it is not. I am not ready to change it yet, anyone else want to comment? Gah4 ( talk) 21:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The equation is non-sense as it is now:
The dimension of (per capita) growth rate should have time in the denominator, as it is a rate. According to the equation, growth rate is dimensionless. Better is
OpenScience ( talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yours is the first comment on the equation since I added the (for sufficiently small...).
I wanted to make it
and was waiting for someone else to comment on it. I thought it would come in days or weeks, though. Otherwise, I believe that in some sense the time period is implied, and so not stated, usually one year. Gah4 ( talk) 10:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
We supposedly ""Evolved"" around a 100 000 years ago ........... look at the graph and be logical . If we evolved 100 000 years ago our population would be absolutley ginormous . Working it back the human population has been growing only a few thousand years. Look at the graph or do the logarithmic calculations quickly (ok granted your calculations won't be perfect but they'll give you a ball park figure) Certianly doesn't look like a hundred thousand years to me. Rather supports a flood 4400 years ago. ( Paladin)
I suppose so, but it is a big leap without any supporting evidence. A higher death rate in early populations would also account for the difference. There are many variables in the human growth curve to consider. Gah4 ( talk) 16:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
....I was under the impression that Wikipedia was NOT the place for religious debates. While I am Christian myself, this is most certainly NOT the place to say that one does not believe in evolution and force your beliefs on others. Besides, it's perfectly possible to be Christian and believe in evolution. Oh, and, no, the population would NOT be "absolutely ginormous". It is only in recent years that we have been able to lower the death rate from fairly common diseases and, for the most part, eliminate epidemics of life-threatening sicknesses, oh, and we've learned quite a bit about nutrition. And consider the lives that wars have taken, too. Stars in the Night Sky 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi , I was merley making a personal observation which as far as I understand im allowed to do (I wasn't under the impression that I have to believe in evolution to comment on wikipedia). Neither was I forcing my "beliefs" on anyone . As it happens im not even a "short day creationist" ! However looking at the evidence im beginning to lean that way . I also know you can be a Christian and believe in evolution , as I used to ! I used to go with theistic evolution however after looking at the arguments and looking at evolution I decided that it was fatally flawed, so I no longer believe in it . Also on the points you made the function is exponetial . Also I don't think they had such great sanitation or medical science 1000 years ago , however even looking at that graph, that is when it begins to rise rapidly. Granted it has sored in that last few years proably significantly because of the reasons you mentioned . However I feel the populaiton should atleast be significantly higher a long time before that point (its not even readable !) if homosapiens "emerged" 100 000 years ago (In my opinion). Look at rats etc. and how they multiply , we have a great advantage over them , in the fact that we are to perceive when we run out of food and space and can move. God bless you, Paladin 14:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
POPULATION GROWTH IS HOW FAST THE RATE OF THE PEOPLE IS GOING UP. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THATS HOW OUR NUMBERS MULTIPLY AND HOW WE KEEP THE COUNT IF EVERYONE.
Uh, aren't the rate of population growth and the population growth rate very different things? One is a derivative of the other, right?
world population get? How will the transition from current rapid growth phase to a sustainable stable phase occur? Will this be an easy or difficult transition? -- Huysman talk| contribs 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The citation request on this assertion: "It has been proposed by many that population growth, if not controlled, could lead to a situation where demands for resources outstrip their ready availability (i.e., overpopulation).[citation needed]"
is unneeded. It's completely obvious after a moment's thought. In fact, the original statement is too timid. If you have 500 people a day crowded around a well that can supply water for 200 people a day, you've got a problem. This is not a theory, it's simple common sense. So, rather than a citation, the article should be expanded to include a little basic logic about fruit-fly-type scenarios.
Hi, as an economist on development I may say common sense is not always the best way to proof a statement. I know it is hard to accept but the same happened to me some time ago. Just a couple of references for you and for those who want to think out of the 'imposed' box: 'The Ultimate Resource 2" by Julian Simon, 1996 ( ISBN 0-691-04269-1) and 'The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World' by Bjørn Lomborg [there is an article in Wikipedia]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.140.211 ( talk) 08:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not common sense, but is a property of the math of exponential growth. The Wheat_and_chessboard_problem is a favorite example of how difficult it is to understand exponential growth. I do agree, though, that no citation is needed. It should be easy to see that at current growth rates the population will be unsustainable in a relatively short number of years (on almost any other human time scale). Gah4 ( talk) 21:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed "natural increase" redirects to this page. It should have its own page because it does not include migration. So really, a country's population growth and natural increase can be quite different, such as in Canada, where more of the population growth is actually from immigration. 69.158.163.223 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The first graph should be logarithmic. — Omegatron 21:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
WaynaQhapaq ( talk) 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The second graph ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Growth.png/800px-Growth.png) draws a "smoothed" line through the data. Though this may look nice, it misleads the reader in that it shows the population dropping between 2010 and 2015. Such a drop conflicts with later graphs that show always-positive growth rates during this time period. This graph should be redrawn with straight lines between data points or no lines at all. JDHeinzmann ( talk) 03:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The real question is, Where will population be in 50 or 100 years? The first plot shown gives us no idea what that will be. It shows everything running up along the right hand side of the plot and bunched up in the upper right corner. You need scales that will allow for orders of magnitude changes in the numbers, i.e., log-log scales. An exponential function will plot out as linear on a logarithmic scale. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 22:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
"However, the world's fastest growing race are Hispanic/Latino origin, who make up 44% of the world's population growth per year..."
What exactly is the purpose of this statement? Considering that "race" itself is a dubious concept, and that "Hispanic/Latino race" a completely unrecognized one in serious scholarship, the statement seem to have been inserted by a US anti-immigrant nativist. I am removing it.
199.115.9.254 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a single thing in here about the causes of population growth, or the effects. There is a very small piece on the causes and effects of the shrinking population in some areas, but not a thing about the causes and effects of actual population growth. There's nothing about how there's a theory that it's affecting global warming, or anything else. Stars in the Night Sky 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think population growth was okay in the past, but now it seems to be turning out bad because if the population grows forever, we would all run out of room to survive. China itself is rather crowded, that's why the law says in China, you may only have one baby. 66.191.115.61 21:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Cbsteffen
how does the population have to do with the death rate or birth rate i just don't get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willie92 ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
the question is that if you implment such a law in say europe that already suffers from ethnic population decline while the thirdworld will brush it off , what will happen? the fact is india and the third world are responsible for most of the population growth since they can't reach transition and no one but people of such origin are responsible . china should make their one child policy softer as well since it will explode in their faces when people reach out of working age with no ss. 79.176.49.28 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
Existing sentence:
It's not the growth that can exceed the carrying capacity, it's the population itself. I'm not sure how to edit it, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just responding to the notice about Tone or Style, as a person who googled for this specific topic, what I was looking for was "World population" and the estimates over the centuries. I think this article at the moment mentions "carrying capacity" / overpopulation too early; and this article should discuss theories on causes of population effect instead of "overpopulation" that already has its own article title. All best. :) 122.106.228.67 ( talk) 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The growth rate formula should be of the form . Also, as stated above by 222.6.194.168, the formula "growth ratio = 100%*growth rate" is meaningless to me. What is intended by this statement? Spiel496 ( talk) 07:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, the book Introduction to Geography by Getis & Getis talks about population momentum. This article does not mention this momentum effect that increases population well into the future despite slowing of growth to the replacement level. This effect should be mentioned in the article, because without it people will think that decline to the replacement will be okay and all problems are solved. -- 212.226.66.147 ( talk) 07:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
In the table in the section "1960s to 2010 table of population growth" Australia's population is indicated "23,215,635[37] (2010)" - which is garbage. On the indicated source it is indicated per 26/03/2013, 12:00 hrs. it is indicated as 22,960,198. The maintainer of the table will please revise the issue. Thank you. 121.216.246.119 ( talk) 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I am slowly beginning to understand what the author is trying to accomplish with the mathematical description. The question is: given a set of population data spanning a certain time period, how is Population Growth Rate or PGR computed? The first equation given is actually a simple difference equation based on the Malthusian exponential model of population growth.
The fundamental equation for Malthusian population change is given by , where is the population, , is the growth rate, and is time. This is a differential equation that can be solved by separating variables and integrating.
where is a constant tying the equation to a particular historical era.
An approximate value for is obtained by computing an incremental difference between two time points baased on the form of the original differential equation, i.e.,
The validity of the approximation will depend on time increment between data points especially if is changing with time (as in the Red-Blue graph). The convoluted math in that initial section is wrong and should be deleted. If the logarithmic form is justified, it deserves a better exposition than is given. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 00:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
From the Malthus Model:
At some arbitrary time point,
At another point nearby,
From this,
The logarithmic form is therefore correct for small increments in time. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 16:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
To account for the linear growth rate trend shown in the Red-Blue graph, the Malthus model must modified as follows:
Where is population, is time, is the population change rate at some reference time, , and is the slope of the rate curve. Integrating and applying limits:
Where is population at the reference time, .
Referring to the Red-Blue graph,
The time at which is
The maximum population will occur in 2010 + 70 or 2080 and
Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 17:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Living matter remains remains fairly constant, I once read, but human population growth progressively transforms more and more of that into human flesh.t I don't know enough about the subject to do a proper search for a reference, much less if any other editor would think it pertinent. — Pawyilee ( talk) 10:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"For example, since the US population was 2 million in 1927, and 5 million in 1987, the growth rate, using the above formula, is (5-2)/2, or 1.5." This sentence is in the article. But US population in 1927 was nearer 150 million, rather than 2 million. Shouldn't this blatant error be fixed?Doug1943 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Population growth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Population growth. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Population growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Population growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Population growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this revert: the content removed from the lede was non-neutrally presented and poorly sourced. Some of these issues are hopefully obvious, but one example is that lone source was the CIA factbook entry for Barbados cited for information on Chad. Regardless, the source makes no reference to the country's population change being itself noteworthy, or caused by anything noteworthy. It also does not use any scare-mongering or editorialize on vaguely Malthusian fears of "straining resources". Please do not restore this again.
Population growth is complicated, but if this specific "fear" somehow belongs in the lede of this article, instead of at human overpopulation where it logically belongs, it would need to be a neutral summary of specific, reliable sources, not WP:SYNTH based on context-free factoids. Grayfell ( talk) 07:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Can we use this a citation in the article, rather than have it in external links?-- Buzles ( talk) 07:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Also this one. Can't it be used as a citation? -- Buzles ( talk) 07:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-growth-rates?tab=chart&time=1950..2030&country=~OWID_WRL ″Data published by United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects: The 2019 Revision, DVD Edition.″ Link https://population.un.org/wpp2019/Download/Standard/Interpolated/
vs
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.pop.grow ″Population growth (annual %) Derived from total population. Population source: ( 1 ) United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects: 2019 Revision, ( 2 ) Census reports and other statistical publications from national statistical offices, ( 3 ) Eurostat: Demographic Statistics, ( 4 ) United Nations Statistical Division. Population and Vital Statistics Report ( various years ), ( 5 ) U.S. Census Bureau: International Database, and ( 6 ) Secretariat of the Pacific Community: Statistics and Demography Programme.″ License : CC BY-4.0
Or is the UN 2019 Revision alone all of that and national sources being distracting noises because of the reasoning "a unitary, global organization can coordinate those data better"?
I assume the more legitimate sources the better for World Bank. Charles.enb.cdefgh ( talk)
Adding: Introduction shows "peak of 2.2% per year in 1963." [Roser, Max; Ritchie, Hannah; Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban (2013-05-09). "World Population Growth". Our World in Data.](Data sources: US Census Bureau & Projections: U. N. Pop. Divi. {Medium Variant 2015 Revision} & https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#how-has-the-world-population-growth-rate-changed too even through theres´s a Population Division (2019). Why? Cren182 ( talk) 09:19, 04 April 2022 (UTC)