Jump to content

Talk:Population growth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Willie92 (talk | contribs) at 01:32, 2 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

OT commentary

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article talk pages exist solely to disuss the article, not the topic. If you guys would like to discuss this topic there are numerous forums, chat rooms, and other venues. -Will Beback · † · 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


POPULATION GROWTH IS HOW FAST THE RATE OF THE PEOPLE IS GOING UP. IT IS VERY IMPORATNT BECASUE 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?

Future World Population

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? -- Huysmantalk| contribs 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary citation request

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)[reply]

Natural Increase

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)[reply]

Graph

The first graph should be logarithmic. — Omegatron 21:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hispanic Race"

"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)[reply]

Causes & Effects

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)[reply]

Consequence from Population Growth

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[reply]

how does the population have to do with the death rate or birth rate i just don't get it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_growth&oldid=161697779"