Actually, the 1,3 number was obtained post factum. Let's take immigration into account - and we'll get a number of, at most, ~0,6-0,8 (average for the last century) - which in in steep decrease (for the last decades or so, the figure is actually below the replacement factor in most developed countries).
You see? It's easy to do - doctoring the data to get what you want and be in rough conformity with the facts.
If you use such numbers, you can obtain a curve blunt enough to match almost anything you want. And it's getting blunter.
Needless to say, you can never predict anything with such methods.
And 325946526 is pretty far from your 'conservative' 0,02 per year which gave 713893177.
And yet, you go ahead with malthus this, malthus that.
Big wop. Even if you take 700 million figure, the equation is off by a factor of 2 over 100 years. Not bad. On previous page I wrote that even if it was off by a factor of 1 million, there would still be quadrillions. It's a far cry from your estimate of 40 thousand which no one in their mind would take seriously.
Big wop indeed.
A factor of 2 is disastrous for any prediction.
Not that what you posted is a prediction; more like you took arbitrary numbers - 0,013 or 0,02 - to ad-hoc "support" whatever you needed supported.
BTW - if you take the fertility rates from the last decade, from the developed world, you would be very lucky to get positive population growth - ANY population growth. Even with massive doctoring, you have trouble "fitting" this into Malthus' mathematical abstractions.
Speaking of which - do look up analysis of Malthus' work (easy to find with google) - for example http://mises.org/daily/5501
- and see just how well has his work stood the test of time before proclaiming it did by using post factum numbers.
Are you trolling?
The equation does a good job of doing rough predictions, so you can get some kind of picture. 1.3% is not arbitrary number, it's a fact. Many countries have much higher rates. 1.3% works well predicting US population as well as others, hence I used it. An equation that's used by World Bank and other organizations is fine for me.
Would Romulans have a population of trillions and quadrillions or would they have a population that could fit into a small football stadium? What do you think?
Math, history, and common sense say former. You're claiming the latter because of a current general trend in developed countries. Wow how old are you btw? You're either trolling or you have some serious work to do.