Populations

bullshit women are in the 5:1 ration to men. just cut the craps and remember people aint fool no more!

In the best of my knowledges...

The predictive model was:

(dN(t)/dt) = k*N(t)

Assuming "k" constant as: - 0,547

Malthus did a "nice assumption like this some years ago".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

(dN(t)/dt) = -0,547*N(t)

dN(t)/N(t) = -0,547*d(t)

Integering from : No -> Nf/ 0 -> t

intg { dN(t)/N(t) } = intg{ - 0,547*d(t) }

ln(Nf) - ln(No) = -0,547*t

Thus:

ln(Nf/No) = -0,547*t

Finally:

t = - ln(Nf/No)* 1/0,547

Assuming Nf = 1 and No = 3.750.000

t = 27,67325 ~ 25 generations.

Mathematically interesting, but very catastrophic...
"The Economist"

M. Xmas
Long Live to Brazilian ones...

The male sex chromosome (y) is deteriorating and the birth rate of the male will be sharply declining. How could be the female birth rate declining though their genetic potentiality of sex determination is higher then that of male sex determination??

what is this ... not makes sense

Não seria maravilhoso? Tomara que todos os outros países se inspirem nestes exemplos, e que o resto do planeta sobreviva até 2700 e tantos para respirar aliviado.

Behind the ridiculous pseudo science is an interesting story that the traditionally high Asian birthrates may be slowing down; not simply due to higher living standards as has been proposed before, but because more women are choosing a different life-path.

I wonder what happened to India where the average marriage age is 25 for men and 21 for girls.

With the second largest population, I bet they would be close to Brazil and Canada but have my doubts regarding this due female foeticide which is a growing concern in both villages and cities of India.

Brazil will rule the world for more than 500 years! Weeeeee!

At least it solves one problem: Belgium will be united again!

[australian2225 wrote:
Aug 27th 2011 10:31 GMT
Luckily for these alarmists there are teeming swarms of breeding millions in Africa, the Middle East, south Asia and Latin America just waiting to overrun the earth.... 11 kids per female, even in the baby factories of refugee camps where they live on aid.]

Maybe that was one reason why the Europeans overran Australia in the first place!

If you are indeed worry, you should help Africa, the Middle East, south Asia and Latin America to modernise. When they became modern, their population grow would slow down.

Devil's

India is not on the list!!!

Right now populations are increasing, and although they have slowed since their fastest absolute increase in the 1990s, the world population of humans is not about to peak anytime soon -- we are likely to add at least 2 billion more people before we peak. The world's worry in terms of population is not that people are having too few children, but too many: the challenge we face is providing dignified lives for all humans, not whether we will face extinction due to lack of breeding.

Unless the population drops significantly (ie below 3 billion), a respectable publication like the Economist has no business fanning fears about lack of fertility. If fertility rates go down, that is a good thing, because more humans means more people who impact and are impacted by climate change.

@TheGrimReaper Brazil just happens to be the last example on this chart. As Julien points out, Nigeria will continue to get ever more populated if it stays on its current course. There are many others like it. I'm confident that the Philippines, where I am now, will have no space whatsoever left by 2500, and many people will be standing in the ocean.

Luckily for these alarmists there are teeming swarms of breeding millions in Africa, the Middle East, south Asia and Latin America just waiting to overrun the earth.... 11 kids per female, even in the baby factories of refugee camps where they live on aid.

Would be interesting to see this kind of analysis using the second derivative as well, not just the first.
That is, taking the annual change in population growth rate in account as well as the growth rate in itself.

Sounds unrealistic, but you never know...

Seems that social change, driven by technology, has altered a basic human activity. To have babies is the function that makes the human race alive and progressing and evolving. This seems to have been evolution gone wrong. Technological change which made economic changes possible m drove women to the work force and birth control methods and devices also assisted the trend of having fewer babies. Do wonder if there is a more fundamental change in the psyche of the human female. The ascendancy of the human race did depend very heavily on physiological changes that the human female underwent , these includes the ability to conceive any time of the year and the widening of the hips to allow with babies with larger brains , nature did endow the female with greater gifts , that of immunity and protection until at least menopause . Wonder not having babies is a more fundamental veer in the human female’s decision making process.

sorry, BUT THAT IS BULLSHIT. these charts really remind me the Murdoch's kind of news...

So, that's how the apes will take over.

The future is no longer what it used to be!