Population: The Final Frontier??

The following is the narrative that accompanies the
development of the image shown at this address
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/a-pop3.html
and that image was generated from the Qbasic program
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/a-pop3.exe
which is stored as a self extracting zip file.
Copying the extracted .BAS program onto a floppy disc makes it easy
to find from wherever Qbasic is running. I've also tried to make
the very simple logic of the program as easy to follow as possible.
Sit back and watch, yours, mine, and everybody else's future unfold.
Try to find an answer, or just convince yourself it's not happening.

Note: The starting point for the curve is at year 2000. "the ratio"
referred to below is (daily population increase divided by total
population).
-------

There's no apparent reason why the ratio for year 2000 daily
population increase per total population should alter. But the
predicted population growth beyond year 2025 very obviously changes
that ratio. Is this an indication that the uncontrolled population
growth dilemma will finally be addressed? Or are we headed for some
form of social trauma? The latter unfortunately seems to be the
case.

The daily increase per total population ratio has been divided by
four for the period 2025 to 2050, and the population curve passes
close by the predicted marker for 2050. That ratio has again been
divided by four and the curve is of course still rising. From what
I gather, population has never gone into decline for a period of
any significance and there's no reason to expect that condition to
change, at least not until the planet's carrying capacity is far
exceeded.

The ratio has once more been divided by four. If one was a complete
idiot, the fact that the ratio is only 1/64th of that in the year
2000 could be cause for great jubilation because we have obviously
won the battle. This is of course far from the truth. There's no
reason to expect that we will emerge from this mess with any sort
of purpose if this problem is not properly addressed, on a global
scale, WITH ABSOLUTE DETERMINATION.

The population curve may not peak exactly as shown but it must
eventually peak when the absolute carrying capacity of the planet is
reached. It cannot possibly continue to rise indefinitely. If the
population dilemma has not been seriously addressed by this time, then
the restraining forces are applied by nature. How the hell is mankind
supposed to function with any purpose while it's held teetering on the
brink of total collapse?

Just the slightest political or environmental disturbance could upset
the balance enough to initiate a catastrophic collapse. It cannot
possibly be sustained indefinitely, and that should be blatantly
obvious.

-------
This second part is the narrative for the reverse generated curve, from
year 2000.
-------

Somewhere around the fifties, Australians were
instructed to populate, or perish.

In hindsight, what a bloody joke!

The Baby Boom years increased the population growth rate enough to
almost align with the reverse generated curve that intersects the
1970 line slightly above the actual population mark. That curve
continues on to intersect the year 1900 line at a point which is
slightly lower than the population for that year. But in reality,
from 1750 to 1950 the curve increase rate was far less than it is
currently. The ratio was a little less than 1/3 the current ratio,
as is to be expected.

Population change for the rest of the journey into the past is
at 1/3 of the year 2000 rate. The plot moves beyond the screen
boundary, but the numbers still tell the story.

Recorded population for year 1850 = 1.262E+9,
1800 = 9.78E+8, 1750 = 7.91E+8
--------------
End narration.
--------------

Considering that coastal population density rises and falls
proportionally to total population, if the daily population
increase per total population ratio remains as current, whatever
the population, the consequences of almost two recent Tsunami events
per day would simply keep the population from rising. Four Tsunami
events per day, every day for the next fifty years would lower world
population to about three billion.

If nothing is done to alter the current trend, the exponential
increase in world population will naturally diminish what's left
of our resources at a similar exponentially increasing rate. It
hardly needs pointing out that at some point in the very near
future, perhaps as close as 2025, the two effects must begin to
coincide, with some consequence. Even if population growth at the
time was to immediately cease, the continued impact of those
consequences will continue to escalate at an ever increasing rate.
Population growth would be held in check by the continued
diminishment of resources. The entire world society would now be
living on the very edge of the planet's ability to sustain it, and
that delicate balance **cannot possibly** continue indefinitely.

The remaining resources will of course be divided fairly amongst
the world communities. In Utopia maybe. Conflicts will escalate
dramatically as resources dwindle.

The 1994 Cairo Conference on world population was the forum in which
our future direction was apparently decided. That conference was
probably considered to be a success. But in reality, apart from the
realization that the problem needs to be addressed, the current
"plan" is little more than just to let nature run its course and see
what happens. The outcome of that conference was probably as good a
result for economists as one could possibly hope for. So what was
really achieved?

For fairly obvious reasons the population crisis is never addressed
at the political level. However, vigorously addressing the
consequences of population growth is encouraged. But if the cause
can't be addressed, how can the remedy ever catch up? Global warming
has been identified as the greatest threat to our future and that
can be addressed by any available means, except alerting the general
public to the dangers of uncontrolled population growth, and
insisting that they fully understand its consequences. The same
catch22 will apply to the forever inadequate water storage
facilities. Rather mind boggling, isn't it? Then of course there's
the official request that we should all put in some effort making
babies to prop up our economic future.

I know the word "bull****" isn't well defined, but its meaning is
well understood universally. It covers everything from blatant lies
and deceit to simple deluded reasoning resulting as a consequence
of the first two basic properties of bull****.

Whatever measures are put in place to lessen the impact of excessive
population, in the end the population limit is still going to be
determined by the carrying capacity of the planet. In order to
restrain an ill informed public living under those conditions, the
level of bull**** will escalate enormously. Promoting a false
reality must eventually create a totally bewildered society which,
out of frustration and despair, will seek alternative realities in
some of the deepest pits of bull**** on earth. That will mark the
beginning of the end. No amount of force will halt the rapid shift
of power.

The odd thing about reality is that, no matter how much one jumps
up and down in protest, in the end the stark realization that it's
not going to change, eventually seeps through into the brain. People
can deal with reality, and in this case they have every right to
know what it is. It's not going to cause the cataclysmic global
reaction that some folk predict (for whatever reason). But that
certainly will eventuate if the problem is ignored.

If there is no future for us, the present has absolutely no purpose.
The mammoth struggle of my ancestors through the countless centuries
that raised me above the swamp was absolutely futile. My life cannot
have purpose. My children's lives can have no purpose. All that
mankind has achieved amounts to absolutely nothing. But we may one
day get to do it all over again and arrive once more at this same
crossroad. With the same result of course.

So far as we're concerned, this tiny speck of a planet is our only
hope of survival in a very hostile universe, and we seem to be hell
bent on destroying it. But who gives a damn. We'll move to another
planet. I've brought the astro newsgroup along for the ride to
answer any related questions.

-----

Max Keon