Is population growth slowing down -

or is it faster than ever?

Ask a Natural system




















Are todays prevailing s-curve and slowing down interpretations of humankinds current
demographics misleading, - or even fraudulently incorrect? If so, how, why, and in what way?

and,

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) be
honestly 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?

And the implications for the ONLY planetary life-support
machinery 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-misleading proclamations from assorted demographers, economists, and non-sci-
ence sectors of academia who commonly employ a misleading statistical assertion in order to suggest to
Demographics, human history,
S-curves, and J-curves
Two graphs and two
interpretations

which should we heed?
their audiences of readers, viewers, listeners, policymakers, students, and journalists that the worlds
rate 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 during the 1960s.

(Notice that such assertions seem to suggest to readers and listeners that Earths world 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),
somewhat or partially-correct from a technical perspective, they are, at the same time and in a far-deeper
sense, dangerously-misleading and/or seriously or entirely incorrect (or even deliberately deceptive?) in
that they contain a decidedly-fraudulent untruth which


CONCEALS, HIDES, and OMITS humankinds aactuala, collective, and continuing
worldwide numerical avalanche of real-world population growth that is unlike
anything our planet has ever had to deal with in human history.

Thus, should such seemingly-reassuring slowing-rate appraisals offered up by some
quarters 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 billion was growing
larger at a rate of approximately 80 million extra persons per year.

2012: Humankinds worldwide population now exceeds 7 billion (2.5 BILLION LARGER than it was three
decades earlier) and is now growing larger at a rate of approximately 83 million extra persons per year

See article addenda for an example of the truly enormous size of each
such billion - (Hint: For each such billion the answer is 38,461 years)

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 closer to 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 drivers
and 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
AACTUALL real-world worldwide growth in actual numbers, various plenary speakers and economic
demographers might better (and more honestly and correctly?) have stated that
Despite tthirty yearss of discussions, peer-reviewed papers, development theory,
international conferences,(and tons of money), not only are we impacting
our planets life-support machinery with a population that is

2.5 billion LARGER than it was beforee

but in addition, today each years
yActual increasey
in 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 1981 R


This latter view, as enunciated above, and as shocking as it may seem to economists and some quarters of
academia, actually far more accurately conveys the unfolding biological and biospheric dangers and
calamities that our continuing J-curve trajectories invite.

Perhaps, however, Earths biospheric life-support machinery and natural
systems should be forgiven for never having taken a statistics course.



It is, after all, the FAULT of 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-widening and ever-worsening and ever-
accumulating levels of damage, wastes, and eradications that they think they are experiencing are sim-
ply an illusion or a temporary inconvenience on a happy road to sustainability and 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 realize that SEVEN billion now and
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 enormous
size of each such billion. (Hint: The answer is 38,461 years)

In one sense, of course, both descriptions (the 2% peak in the 1960s and todays Even faster-than-in
1981 description) can both be defended in a technical sense The trouble is, however, that in todays aca-
demia (and media and policymaker circles), the proffered 2% peak in the 1960s embodies a decidedly-
fraudulent untruth, while at the same time, the Even faster-than-in 1981 description is omitted, unack-
nowledged or is not so much as mentioned.

Thus, if policymakers, citizens, students, and humankinds rising generations of under-20s are offered
ONLY the 2% peak perspective (and are shielded from the equally and far-more correct Even faster-
than-in-1981 perspective), then the enormity of the biospheric, biological, and ecological damage,
challenges, wastes, and eradications are obscured.
(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) be
honestly 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 thee ONLY planetary life-support
machinery so far known to exist anywhere in the universe?