Explain exponential growth Videos

Efficiency and optimisation is separate of growth problem he's referring to. Sure, we will progress and that's indisputable, but Earth can support only so many people. After that certain number is reached we won't have any growth and since global economy depends on growth of consumption and growth of industries, some of those industries will inevitably collapse. The result of that is instability and in some cases that can be catastrophic. It's kinda like a real estate bubble, once it reaches certain threshold it will collapse and it will resonate. And the more interconnected we are the more we feel those consequences. The problem is not growth in and of it self, the problem is growth in a limited space with limited and finite resources. If we discover ten new planets which can support us and we discover the means to populate them, sure the problem is solved. But only until another limit is reached and that is the essence of his message.

+Marko RadinkovicI don't see why the model has to be change at all(or at least for the next couple thousand years). I'm leaning towards that latter, so impossibility of further growth. We shouldn't try and stifle growth and innovation because it will be hard er to grow in the future. A part of innovation/growth is creating more efficient ways to use existing resources.

+OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Well, it is not of his or anyone's concern if things go for the better. It is however everyone's business if things do not go for the better and are out of control. For example, if countries do not cooperate on certain matters and keep competing in scaling up their industries and consumption, we will have a problem at some point. The alarming fact is that the global economy is based on growth. So that means.. what exactly? Growth of economy means both growth of consumption as well as the infrastructure and scale of the industry. So at some point model has to be changed, deliberately or by shear impossibility of further growth.

:25 Einstein called this the EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD, he was referring to doubling times compounded as to interest/dividends as one example... The RULE OF 72 applies to this econo-math and can be used to calculate doubling times and inflation's effect on money's worth - so at 1:47 i'm surprised he uses THE RULE OF 70? Why not RULE OF 71? actually he is a bit WRONG, or i should say accurate enough? 69 is actually better for lower rates - 72 is really a convenience for easy fraction math...

Do not worry about him. Universe is choosing at this very moment who will live and who will die. The end of the middle class is very real, the bread lines will be real shortly as the government debts are doubling every 4 years. We can not save the people that are not in tune with universe. Looking at history 9 million people died of starvation during the great depression it was the gold/silver standard that saved it from being worse. This time will be 10 fold as nothing is backing the debt.

@Kerolden "where exactly did 10 percent come from" Here: juliansimon. com/writings/Articles/LEBATLAN. txt I'd thought he'd said 10. It was actually 20: "even leaving 20% of the land area for streets, parks, and buildings other than housing." . "utilities(energy) [...] is a huge resource and land hog)" You want energy utilities that serve Boulder to move *into* Boulder? Why? You're saying your demand is that Boulder be made into an island? What's wrong with trading beyond Boulder for energy?

as to Pilzer's book: technology, which, it is assumed, creates wealth without limit by a process revealingly labeled "economic alchemy" propounds a gospel of no limits for all... just how many can we have as ALL?... if u don't like this guy in this video, or his arch-nemesis Paul Zane Biliionaire, u can use this utube video as a response: "May God Have Mercy On Your Soul" as to the other Paul of the Ehrlich type: "The Population Explosion", his 1990 book, but he did write more recent books

@Kerolden "many of these areas dont even produce their own food(no arable land available)" Arable land isn't a natural resource. It's always been manufactured by people. If people aren't producing any arable land in a given area, it's because it's cheaper to import things that would otherwise be produced on that arable land. Is it shocking that there are cities in the world that don't produce their own cars or pencils? Do you yourself produce everything you use? What's wrong with trading?

@Kerolden "the [...] california water crisis" As much as there is such a thing, is it caused by population or by policy? . "road systems" If you reserved 10% of the 63.1 million square meters of dry land area in Boulder for roads and parks, it would make it impossible for 3.8 million people to live there? Really? Lets see: Subtracting 10% leaves us with about 57 million square meters to put people. At an average height of 10 stories, that allows 150 sqm (or 1,615 sqft) per person.

I find it incredible that, despite Dr. Bartlett's well-presented argument, there can be so many doubting comments on this page. To all doubters - please spend more time considering the basic math Dr. Bartlett has presented. Understand that the numbers aren't his. They're ours (ie. "the human race's"). Do you blame a detective for fingerprints left behind at a crime scene? Do you doubt a detective when he produces a DNA match linking the suspect to the crime?

But the growth rate of the world population has been declining since 1980, and will reach 0 in about 65 years. So the population explosion is ending. Furthermore, the people whose population is still growing, mostly because of decreasing infant mortality, are living closer to the land, contributing far less to global warming than the so-called developed world. So population is not the problem. Irresponsible abuse of resources and people is the problem.

No the growth rate is declining for "now" and "foreseeable" future. At any point in time the ideologies of people if they are not kept aware of the situation, or blind and unhealthy and diseased, or otherwise unable to reproduce may change their mind and start having more children again. The bible belt may just get everyone to go forth and multiply like good old god wants us too! The bible is coming back to school u know...

@Kerolden "these dont resolve the basic requirement of sustainability." What's "sustainability"? Who's "requiring" it? . "arable land is certainly a natural resource" Nope: juliansimon. com/writings/Ultimate_Resource "Chapter 8 Are We Losing Ground?" "Chapter 9 Two Bogeymen: "Urban Sprawl" and Soil Erosion" "Chapter 10 Water, Wood, Wetlands--And What Next?" "Chapter 29 Population Growth And Land"

18:30 "you couldn't put the population of Los Angeles in the Boulder valley." Why not? Boulder has a dry land area of 63.1 million square meters. Los Angeles has a population of only 3.8 million which works out to 16.6 square meters per person -- or 166 square meters at an average height of 10 stories, or 1,660 square meters at an average height of 100 stories. What's so impossible about that?

@christo930 He is absolutely wrong when he says the the birth rate and death rate are going to meet at equilibrium. What is actually going to happen, since we are passed sustainable population, is that the death rate will outstrip the birthrate until our numbers meet at the earth's natural carrying capacity, or there will be a catastrophic drop through disease war famine etc.

"God Wants You to Be Rich: How and Why Everyone Can Enjoy Material and Spiritual Wealth in Our Abundant World" by PAUL ZANE PILZER well, if a god doesn't save us i hope at least paul can, but i prefer the clarion call and message of PAUL EHRLICH, if only to prepare for the worst and know hope for the best is folly...

@christo930 "Why doesn't this work when the growth rate is 70%?" ...Because "if r is small, then ln(1 + r) approximately equals r". Conversely, if r is large, then ln(1 + r) won't approximately equal r, and we will therefore have to use the full formula shown here: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Rule_of_72#Derivation

@Kerolden "this is what i mean when i say sustainability [pnas]" Sustainability isn't defined there. . "the reference is garbage" I didn't ask you if you thought it was garbage. You have no response to any of Julian Simon's logic or facts? You have no response to any of mine, nor to any of my questions?

Why doesn't this work when the growth rate is 70%? If I had $10 and I got a 70% return, my compound interest wouldn't be doubling every year. 10,17,28.9 (at this point I should have 40)49.13 (at this point I should have 80)83.521(160) and so on.

I suspect it isn't the inability to understand the exponential function, it is willful ignorance because people realize that the knowledge would require them to make unhappy choices.

@Kerolden "waste disposal" How about putting waste in landfills? . "water" How about selling it, instead of giving it away? . "air quality" How about charging for air pollution?

I agree. We need a shrink. But, we won't get it without establishing common ownership and democratic management of the collective product of our labour.

This man is a great American hero and patriot. Through my studies of history the greatest minds go undisclosed to the mainstream population.

Keep going Dr Bartlett, you are brilliant! There is more on this topic at "overconsumpulation" and "one planet, one child".

Thank you Dr. Bartlett for fighting to bring sensibility and responsibility to the populace. You will not be forgotten.

Contradicting yourself much , don't you think your a bit old to be talking about how old people are living these days. :-|

Yup on China's move from 1 to 2 children. You are much smarter than me.  This one book indicated that the only way to save the human species was to leave one half of the planet to nature (the wild animals).  

+TehM4dcow no, humans are 'conservatively' in 6 times overshoot over the one billion of 1800 which is considered to be last time it was nominally within carrying capacity. you do realize people are entirely fed by oil powered agriculture, which is the very definition of 'overshoot' ? if population is fed by non renewable resource it must be in overshoot. but this a situation that cannot last, also by definition (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics sees to that). things will inevitably change as oil peaks, declines and the economy crumbles, leaving the overshoot population to collapse. all blooms are followed by die offs. its a natural law.i say conservatively because the assumption is that the 1 billion prior to 1800 was not in overshoot already by some margin, and it almost certainly was. however, that one billion was at least sustainable in that it used low energy, high man powered agricultural sophistication, and skills that have been entirely lost, not fossil fuels. and that the political and economic situation was adapted to that type of living arrangement. it can also be assumed that the environment was considerably more stable and conducive to sustainable agriculture in 1800 than it is now and increasingly in the future due to climate change / population pressure / mass extinction etc etc. during the collapse of industrial civilization that is inevitable now (due to your type of degenerate ignorance and denial), all semblance of previous stability will be almost entirely lost. so its highly likely the carrying capacity of the earth for humans by 2100 will be precisely zero. the thing that seals our fate is the 6c warming by 2100 that is projected by IPCC worst case scenario (the business as usual curve we are actually on). and that ignores most positive feedbacks. and ingores that it won't end in 2100 either. or fate is sealed.so yes, we are over populated. and by at least 6 times. this is a fact and not debatable. kobehal was nearly correct, but did not go far enough. i will correct this now. we dont n eed a one child policy. we need a universal zero child policy for 30 years, followed by a one child policy going forwards. ie no children to be born by any women on earth for 30 years to have a slim chance of avoiding extinction of the human species. this total ban is necessary because we are out of time due to constant delays and denial, and need the fastest humane decrease possible. and dont say this will lead to human extinction itself as 30 years was carefully chosen to reflect human biology. any female children born close to the start of the ban will obviously still easily be able to have one child after the zero child ban is lifted. so the human population will still be quite high. probably 3 billion. but this just shows i=the inertia, and how drastic measures cannot help much when things have been criminally delayed for so long by people like you.the lifting of the one child policy by the chinese is absolutely deplorable act of stupidity, in large part by them being infected by the insane western pro growth neoliberalism religion. putting their trivial aging population problem before the big picture of overshoot is nothing short of a crime against humanity of the highest degree. the aging population problem can be solved by social engineering fairly easily. it does not require exponentially more people. that is insane, due to the facts ive explained.

+kobehal so by that logic we will half the worlds population in one generation? We are not overpopulated yet... We just have to limit it to 2 people per 2 people.

+one4mrDj quantisation problem. Al Bartlett was using the definition dY/dt =g.Y (for a quantity Y growing at constant rate g). Updating quarterly, monthly, or every five years will yield different results

We have an overpopulation problem already ....look at every graph of worldwide consumption of ..well...EVERYTHING..We will not rectify the misuse of resources. Here is a few reasons why -1-Theres too many under educated religious people that wont get past there simplistic ,makes them feel good, made in gods image beliefs ,that god will come down from the heavens and right our wrongs..Its delusion . 2 -Go back to Isaac Asimov's bathroom analogy, with only one change , throw a couple of sociopaths or psychopaths into the mix , tell them whoever goes first gets a hot shower, the rest get icy cold showers...Who is going to break the laws of decency to get the hot showers ? More than likely this person will not only be first, but intentionally use all the hot water and chuckle as he walks out the door with the only dry towel, as he leaves his used and wet towel behind . A quote I heard about 3 years ago sums up the state that capitalism has brought us today...its simple really ....When greed is your only god ...Sociopaths shall assume control . Sociopaths seek sociopaths to side with in business to manipulate people and the systems...any system. Most corporations have many of these empathetic less people in positions of power...its how they succeed. Wish I could remember the exact numbers but I believe its 1 in 150 people are psychotic , 1 in 25 sociopathic ( those numbers may be off but you get the picture ) Sorry no hot water , no towel ,no soap for you or me. Funny how the dirtiest, meanest, dishonest, most manipulative person got the cleanest the fastest and easiest . Apply this to big business. Show less +R Bax

+G Wang Eh...It's good that he did what he did. But most people would have said the same thing about physicists prattling on with electricity a couple hundred years ago. One never knows from what fundamental science research something that will make the world a better place will come. This is why fundamental research is essential and worthwhile.

+Jeff Boutilier I understand that, however, I'm optimistic we at least have the possibility of overcoming it. My contention is that by a measure of what resources and technologies are available to us, we do not have an overpopulation problem. This is irrespective of the current socio-economic arrangement, and culture.

+Gareth Ham We have an overpopulation problem already ....look at every graph of worldwide consumption of ..well...EVERYTHING..We will not rectify the misuse of resources. Here is a few reasons why -1-Theres too many under educated religious people that wont get past there simplistic ,makes them feel good, made in gods image beliefs ,that god will come down from the heavens and right our wrongs..Its delusion . 2 -Go back to Isaac Asimov's bathroom analogy, with only one change , throw a couple of sociopaths or psychopaths into the mix , tell them whoever goes first gets a hot shower, the rest get icy cold showers...Who is going to break the laws of decency to get the hot showers ? More than likely this person will not only be first, but intentionally use all the hot water and chuckle as he walks out the door with the only dry towel, as he leaves his used and wet towel behind . A quote I heard about 3 years ago sums up the state that capitalism has brought us today...its simple really ....When greed is your only god ...Sociopaths shall assume control . Sociopaths seek sociopaths to side with in business to manipulate people and the systems...any system. Most corporations have many of these empathetic less people in positions of power...its how they succeed. Wish I could remember the exact numbers but I believe its 1 in 150 people are psychotic , 1 in 25 sociopathic ( those numbers may be off but you get the picture ) Sorry no hot water , no towel ,no soap for you or me. Funny how the dirtiest, meanest, dishonest, most manipulative person got the cleanest the fastest and easiest . Apply this to big business.

+Robert Riversong Mind explaining how I 'ignore' the second law of Thermodynamics? If you read my comment thoroughly, I stated that I believed it was PROBABLE that we would exterminate ourselves, continuing to head down the same path.But I do not believe it is impossible for us to sustain a population greater than the existing number, with our existing technologies, despite the coming ecological catastrophe we have set in motion. I find it incredibly ironic that you are trying to imply I am the one being narcissistic in this situation. You clearly misinterpreted my comment.

+Robert Riversong Your logic is as follows: 1. The developed countries must find the solution (as undeveloped countries do not have the resources to do so) 2. A solution is yet to be found, therefore;3. We must hasten the collapse of the developed countries This is a very destructive position to hold and is most likely due to a warped, leftist worldview. That is, an equal sharing of misery is preferable to unequal benefits. It is akin to an ambulance driver totaling his van, killing himself and all the medical crew aboard, after discovering that their patient had died.If you want to find a solution then you need the developed countries to survive long enough for them to do so.If you believe a realistic solution is unattainable, why hasten the demise of the developed countries? This is the response of a masochist, not a rational person.

+Susan Foley : The only people who claim that immigration control would solve anything are the ones who want more of the pie for themselves, the rest of the world be damned. Of course, this ignores such global problems as climate change and species extinction, but it will allow the comfortable to remain comfortable for a bit longer at the expense of everyone else.