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.
EmperorTiberius, you're the one who's trolling.
Either that, or you're confused as to the definition of the word 'prediction'; you couldn't do a simple google search if your life depended on it; etc.
Malthus's work - and prediction of unstoppable growth - never gave even half-reliable predictions. Which is why it was repeatedly debunked - apropos this, did you even bother with a google search; or even to peruse my link? Doutful, considering the contents of your post.
Your post-factum figures are nothing resembling predictions.
A prediction must come BEFORE the fact.
After the fact, you can look at statistics and make them fit almost whatever you want (as you did); these are NOT predictions, but doctoring the data.
During the ~last decades, more and more (48% at last count) of the world population lived - and lives - in nations with sub-replacement fertility.
And, of course, this fits Malthus.
At least you dialed down the number of romulans to trillions - from sextillions. How many orders of magnitude is that, EmperorTiberius?
As for 40000 - that was with 0,02% fertility rate - a number as arbitrary as any other you came up with.
Based on historical and current trends in the growth of human population, the romulans could be either 0 in number or numbering in the billions (not more).
PS - "Math, history, and common sense say former."
You really do need to read up on history. And then see how "well" exponential curves fit in.
It could save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.