Exponential Modeling
Our model is an exponential function based off nine data points sourced from the website “Worldometers,” a highly rated source by the American Library Association. “Worldometers” uses data from United Nations, World Health Organization (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. The data begin in the year 1900 and ends in the year 2011, and after the 1951, the graph is marked by intervals of ten years, since 1951 marked the beginning of annual population estimates.
Based on the exponential model and carrying capacity of 10 billion people (described below), human population will exceed the carrying capacity in 2032.
The argument for the exponential model was resolved relatively quickly in our group discussion. First of all, the data support an exponential function--with an r squared value of .991, strongly indicating that the exponential function was a good fit for the data. With the generated logistic function, the r squared value was .641, indicating a much poorer fit. The second layer of argumentation came from the nature of human development. Since the logistic function suggests that the human population will hit a carrying capacity, we thought that this was inherently misleading. In this age of technology, the human population is bound to grow--especially with death rates decreasing significantly from better medicine, living conditions, and water availability.
Sources:
Based on the exponential model and carrying capacity of 10 billion people (described below), human population will exceed the carrying capacity in 2032.
The argument for the exponential model was resolved relatively quickly in our group discussion. First of all, the data support an exponential function--with an r squared value of .991, strongly indicating that the exponential function was a good fit for the data. With the generated logistic function, the r squared value was .641, indicating a much poorer fit. The second layer of argumentation came from the nature of human development. Since the logistic function suggests that the human population will hit a carrying capacity, we thought that this was inherently misleading. In this age of technology, the human population is bound to grow--especially with death rates decreasing significantly from better medicine, living conditions, and water availability.
Sources:
- Population data: Link
Carrying Capacity Analysis
The question of the maximum capacity of the Earth has been debated for centuries. One popular opinion is the Ehrlich model of sustainability, known as the IPAT equation. Paul Ehrlich states that the impact, or I, is equal to the Population (P) times Consumption or Affluence (A) multiplied by the technological factor (T) which compensates for progresses in technology. This simple equation basically says that as population increases, our standards for living must either decrease, or the level of our technology must continue to keep growing. This creates an ominous march to humanity’s demise, where Science is desperately sprinting ahead to prevent massive die-offs from starvation, dehydration, and exposure.
Thomas Malthus was one of the first philosophers to look into this issue in depth. He said that "The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.” What this means, essentially, is that humans have the same drive as other species to continuously expand and conquer the earth, but unlike other species, humans have the capability to do this on a truly remarkable scale. Humans have a fairly high place on the food chain, which means that they consume much more resources than smaller animals, and populations must thus remain fairly small.
As of the invention of civilization and farming, however, this is simply no longer the case. Human populations have skyrocketed since the beginning of the 18th century, and the technological advances of that era, such as the seed drill (a device that made farming much more efficient), the steam engine (one of the most revolutionary inventions of all time that allowed the mechanization of labor), the sextant and chronometer (they allowed for previously unimaginable feats of navigation and much more reliable sailing) and finally electricity. Now, more than ever, less and less menial labor was required of humans, which drastically expanded lifetimes. In addition, the reduced amount of time laboring allowed for greater scientific research, which further reduced labor times, in a continuous cycle that still occurs today. Now, within modernized countries that use the most efficient means of farming, menial labor has not been fully eliminated, but it is near extinction. As the rest of humanity follows, with the delay of less developed countries, higher and higher populations will be produced.
Unfortunately, there is a strict limit to the amount of food that the earth can produce, simply because of limits in the amount of fertile land that exists on earth. According to Ehrlich, the current population is already far too high, his view is supported by the estimate that our current population, at current levels of technology, would take approximately 1.5 Earths to sustain. According to Oxfam, we (the people of Earth) are already in a state of crisis. Oxfam predicts that by 2050, food consumption will increase by 70%. On top of that, rice production decreases by approximately 10% for every degree Celsius of global temperature increase. Most predictions approximate that by 2050, the earth will have warmed between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees Celsius. This means that by 2050, we can expect 5-15% lower rice production, which constitutes a serious problem because of how many people rely on rice for daily nutrition already, let alone after a 70% increase in food demand. There are currently 3.5 billion acres of fertile land on which food can be grown. Corn can produce 15 million calories per acre. So, theoretically, up to 15 people could be supported by an acre of land, going off of a diet that consists of 2500 calories a day. This would lead to a carrying capacity of approximately 37 billion people.
There are some obvious problems with this model. For starters, a diet of exclusively corn would be fatal to both the land on which is is grown, and the consumers. Averaging the per-acre caloric yields of some common foods (wheat, corn, potatoes, soy-beans, beef, pork, and chicken) leads to a more realistic estimate of 6.3 million calories per acre. That ends up being a carrying capacity of about 15.5 billion people. Given the vast inefficiencies of production, the wasteful nature of food, especially in western countries (up to 50% of food in the United States is wasted!), We think it is is a fair assumption that, especially with advances in technology, we can scrape by at ⅔ efficiency, meaning that ⅔ of the calories produced will actually end up in somebody’s stomach.
This ends up being a carrying capacity of approximately 10 billion people. It seems that our estimate lines up nicely with that of the United Nations. According to the UN, the carrying capacity of the earth varies between 8 and 16 billion, with the median estimate being approximately 10 billion people. The United Nations’ calculation, however, was based off of birth rates and life expectancies, rather than food production estimates. In any case, it would seem that the best estimate for carrying capacity of the earth is 10 billion people.
Sources:
Thomas Malthus was one of the first philosophers to look into this issue in depth. He said that "The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.” What this means, essentially, is that humans have the same drive as other species to continuously expand and conquer the earth, but unlike other species, humans have the capability to do this on a truly remarkable scale. Humans have a fairly high place on the food chain, which means that they consume much more resources than smaller animals, and populations must thus remain fairly small.
As of the invention of civilization and farming, however, this is simply no longer the case. Human populations have skyrocketed since the beginning of the 18th century, and the technological advances of that era, such as the seed drill (a device that made farming much more efficient), the steam engine (one of the most revolutionary inventions of all time that allowed the mechanization of labor), the sextant and chronometer (they allowed for previously unimaginable feats of navigation and much more reliable sailing) and finally electricity. Now, more than ever, less and less menial labor was required of humans, which drastically expanded lifetimes. In addition, the reduced amount of time laboring allowed for greater scientific research, which further reduced labor times, in a continuous cycle that still occurs today. Now, within modernized countries that use the most efficient means of farming, menial labor has not been fully eliminated, but it is near extinction. As the rest of humanity follows, with the delay of less developed countries, higher and higher populations will be produced.
Unfortunately, there is a strict limit to the amount of food that the earth can produce, simply because of limits in the amount of fertile land that exists on earth. According to Ehrlich, the current population is already far too high, his view is supported by the estimate that our current population, at current levels of technology, would take approximately 1.5 Earths to sustain. According to Oxfam, we (the people of Earth) are already in a state of crisis. Oxfam predicts that by 2050, food consumption will increase by 70%. On top of that, rice production decreases by approximately 10% for every degree Celsius of global temperature increase. Most predictions approximate that by 2050, the earth will have warmed between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees Celsius. This means that by 2050, we can expect 5-15% lower rice production, which constitutes a serious problem because of how many people rely on rice for daily nutrition already, let alone after a 70% increase in food demand. There are currently 3.5 billion acres of fertile land on which food can be grown. Corn can produce 15 million calories per acre. So, theoretically, up to 15 people could be supported by an acre of land, going off of a diet that consists of 2500 calories a day. This would lead to a carrying capacity of approximately 37 billion people.
There are some obvious problems with this model. For starters, a diet of exclusively corn would be fatal to both the land on which is is grown, and the consumers. Averaging the per-acre caloric yields of some common foods (wheat, corn, potatoes, soy-beans, beef, pork, and chicken) leads to a more realistic estimate of 6.3 million calories per acre. That ends up being a carrying capacity of about 15.5 billion people. Given the vast inefficiencies of production, the wasteful nature of food, especially in western countries (up to 50% of food in the United States is wasted!), We think it is is a fair assumption that, especially with advances in technology, we can scrape by at ⅔ efficiency, meaning that ⅔ of the calories produced will actually end up in somebody’s stomach.
This ends up being a carrying capacity of approximately 10 billion people. It seems that our estimate lines up nicely with that of the United Nations. According to the UN, the carrying capacity of the earth varies between 8 and 16 billion, with the median estimate being approximately 10 billion people. The United Nations’ calculation, however, was based off of birth rates and life expectancies, rather than food production estimates. In any case, it would seem that the best estimate for carrying capacity of the earth is 10 billion people.
Sources:
Carbon Footprint Charts and Analysis
Populations and carbon emissions have long been linked. As populations grow, energy needs also grow. Furthermore, as time goes by, there has been a greater and greater thirst for electricity, with new inventions that use it coming out on a daily basis. This is clearly unsustainable. As discussed in the carrying capacity essay, global temperatures leads to lower food production. Unfortunately, as populations continue to rise, so will carbon emissions, and thus global temperatures. Thus, as populations continue to increase, our ability to feed these populations will continue to decrease, a fatal trend that will lead to mass starvation if not stopped.
There is only one blunt solution to this: rapid decrease in carbon emissions per capita. Emissions per capita need to continue decreasing proportionally to population sizes. This means that research and development will essentially be the industries preventing extinction of all life on Earth, and much more funding will thus need to be relegated to them. In popular novels, the nations of the world often come together against the common threat of alien invaders. Now, they will have to come together to fight an even more sinister foe, one that no amounts of weapons or soldiers can stop: global temperatures. The amount of money that could be redirected into research is simply staggering. Within the United States alone, if all money spent by the military not spent on research was redirected into funding research that would increase efficiency and decrease emissions, there would be over $500 billion extra.
Sources:
There is only one blunt solution to this: rapid decrease in carbon emissions per capita. Emissions per capita need to continue decreasing proportionally to population sizes. This means that research and development will essentially be the industries preventing extinction of all life on Earth, and much more funding will thus need to be relegated to them. In popular novels, the nations of the world often come together against the common threat of alien invaders. Now, they will have to come together to fight an even more sinister foe, one that no amounts of weapons or soldiers can stop: global temperatures. The amount of money that could be redirected into research is simply staggering. Within the United States alone, if all money spent by the military not spent on research was redirected into funding research that would increase efficiency and decrease emissions, there would be over $500 billion extra.
Sources:
Carbon Footprint by Country
Looking at the data above, an interesting trend can be observed. Taking into account the ten countries with the highest carbon emissions, it should be noted that all ten are very wealthy and extremely small countries with some sort of characteristic export or international attraction. This makes it obvious that, unlike net carbon emissions, carbon emissions per capita have very little correlation to population. Actually, there is a very strong inverse correlation. This trend proves that population is decidedly not a good scale for personal contribution to global warming.
Instead, carbon footprint per capita is shown to have a greater correlation to the industry and type of energy used in the country, as opposed to the population of the country. For example, Qatar, located in the Middle East, has huge oil reserves which make the economy 1. based off the exportation of oil, and 2. run on burning oil, as opposed to alternative fuel sources. Instead of having developed solar or wind industries, plentiful natural resources are conducive to higher carbon emissions. Likewise, in Trinidad and Tobago and Curacao, renewable energy has not developed, and industry runs on fossil fuels. As a result, nearly all operations are based off burning fossil fuels, resulting in higher per capita emissions.
Sources:
Instead, carbon footprint per capita is shown to have a greater correlation to the industry and type of energy used in the country, as opposed to the population of the country. For example, Qatar, located in the Middle East, has huge oil reserves which make the economy 1. based off the exportation of oil, and 2. run on burning oil, as opposed to alternative fuel sources. Instead of having developed solar or wind industries, plentiful natural resources are conducive to higher carbon emissions. Likewise, in Trinidad and Tobago and Curacao, renewable energy has not developed, and industry runs on fossil fuels. As a result, nearly all operations are based off burning fossil fuels, resulting in higher per capita emissions.
Sources:
GDP Analysis
It can be observed from the data above that GDP per capita can develop over time in a variety of ways. Despite their differences, all are dependent on the a growing population. This correlation is result of the fact that the expansion of a the market or economy requires an increase in the number of individuals contributing to it. Markets and economies depend on individuals to not only produce goods but provide services. The reason the graphs of GDP per capita above are so different despite their mutual dependence on population growth is that the markets and economies of these countries have been affected by different external forces. There are a multitude of external forces that can significantly affect markets and economies though most fit into social or political categories.
Sources:
Sources: