EmperorTiberius wrote:
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.
For example:
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.