Population Growth Rates.

[bob b]

I have started a new thread so that Hank and I can each present evidence regarding population growth rates. My source is UN reports on current population growth rates and the average number of children born to women during their reproductive years.

Interestingly, population growth rates seem to bear an inverse relationship to modern medicine: i.e. those countries with the most modern medicine have the lowest population growth rates and those with the least modern medicine have the highest population growth rates.

 

[chrysostom]

Can you project the year the population will reach 7 billion?

 

[Open Arms]

I have started a new thread so that Hank and I can each present evidence regarding population growth rates. My source is UN reports on current population growth rates and the average number of children born to women during their reproductive years.

Interestingly, population growth rates seem to bear an inverse relationship to modern medicine: i.e. those countries with the most modern medicine have the lowest population growth rates and those with the least modern medicine have the highest population growth rates.

Richer country's with better medicine are America and Europe who also choose to not have more kids. medicine is not the only factor in growth rates.

 

[bob b]

Richer country's with better medicine are America and Europe who also choose to not have more kids. medicine is not the only factor in growth rates.

It's not even the most important factor as the inverse relationship shows.

The most important factor is the number of children born by each female, which according to the UN is amazingly high in subSahara Africa.

"Can you project the year the population will reach 7 billion?"

Ans. This can be done once the population reaches a large size. Projections using average growth rates do not work nearly as well for small populations because the smooth curves assumed for large populations do not fit well for small populations and hence can be misleading.

I have an enumeration analysis for small populations which I will post as soon as I can locate it.

 

[bob b]

There is a historical parallel to guide us in population growth when starting with small numbers. This is the example of Joseph's brothers coming to live with him in Egypt. 400 some years later there were
600,000 of them not counting women and children.
As a check let us use the approach of enumeration.
Starting with the original 8:------------------------------------------0
3 sons have 12 children - 8 + 36 = 44-----------------------------30
18 sons have 12 - 8 + 36 + 216 = 260-------------------------------60
108 sons have 12 - 8 + 36 + 216 + 1296 = 1556-----------------------90
648 sons have 12 - 8 + 36 + 216 + 1296 + 7776 = 9332--------------120
3888 sons have 12 - 8 + 36 + 216 + 1296 + 7776 + 46656 = 55988------150
20828 sons have 12 - 8 + 36 + 216 + 1296 + 7776 + 46656 + 279936 = ?-180
Total population after 180 years and 6 generations = 335,924

This of course is optimistic by todays standards, but the Bible claims
great ages for people, decreasing gradually after the Flood. So the
optimism may actually be conservative because in many parts of the world
even today many families have MORE than 12 children. I have allowed for 30
years per generation (18 + 1 child per year) which may also be conservative.
The point of this is not to make a prediction but only to show that it is
conceivable that 400 years may be a feasible time in which to grow a sizable
nation. Notice that if each generation dies after bearing children the
total is only changed by a small amount. The major parameter influencing
the result is simply the average number of children born of each woman!

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Bob, the fertility doesn't exceed 8 anywhere in the world, not even sub-Saharan Africa. Twelve children per woman is a gross overestimation.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_tot_fer_rat-people-total-fertility-rate

 

[Chileice]

Spain just decided to give every woman 2500 euros for each new child born hoping to increase the birth rate, which is presently well below replacement level.
http://www.eldiariomontanes.es/prensa/20070707/sociedad/euros-ayuda-cada-hijo_20070707.html

Other countries have tried this as has the Province of Quebec. I think that women in these countries have other things to do with their time than raise a huge batch of kids. The biggest problem is that the "have-not" countries continue to explode because their women have no jobs other than to be pregnant and raise kids. But they can't feed them so it puts immigration pressure on developed countries to take in the overflow from the baby-factory countries. It is going to become a very hot geo-political issue in the near future.

 

[macguy]

Bob, the fertility doesn't exceed 8 anywhere in the world, not even sub-Saharan Africa. Twelve children per woman is a gross overestimation.[/url]

Current estimations don't accurately represent historical estimations. Bob b is working with the enumeration of the population growth according to biblical standards. Although this is true, Bob mentioned that this would be rather optimistic considering today's standards. In biblical times, the average life span would be at least around double. Don't forget that in that that time, there wasn't a law forbidding marriage with multiple wives. Also consider that many in today's time, have a lot of other cares to tend to. Back in those days, they didn't have as much things to do as we have today. That would explain why population growth isn't high these days. Merely because our population doesn't exceed 8 does not really mean that a fertility rate of 12 is impossible. Many factors must be considered before making such a conclusion.

 

[Chileice]

Here is another interesting note about gypsies in Slovakia and the Czech Republic and the pressure their growth rates put on society. Gypsy women average 6.0 children per woman whil majority populations are under 2. Yet Roma (Gypsy) unemployment is VERY high, cigarette smoking is more than double the national average, drug and alcohol abuse are rampant... yet they are the ones putting the most pressure on the public health care systems.

While these links offer some "dense" reading, they are of interest if you are trying to find out something about population growth, culture and culture clash. These relate to the problem.
In English. http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...e+expectancy+smoking&hl=es&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=cl

This article is about the AIDS explosion among the Romani (Gypsies) in Central Europe. They have been in Europe for a long time, but they live like 3rd world people.
In English. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n85x75610l601052/

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Current estimations don't accurately represent historical estimations.

I'm not arguing that they do, but that Bob's claim is false. Sub-Saharan Africa's fertility rate is not 12...it's not even 8.

Bob b is working with the enumeration of the population growth according to biblical standards.

This should be interesting...

Although this is true, Bob mentioned that this would be rather optimistic considering today's standards.

"Rather optimistic" is quite the understatement.

In biblical times, the average life span would be at least around double.

What do you consider Biblical times? And the average life span would be at least double what? The average life span throughout much of the developed world is 65-75. Are you saying that those living in Biblical times lived to be approximately 130-150? Oh, and statistics show that the average life span of humans has increased over the past several thousand years...not decreased.

Don't forget that in that that time, there wasn't a law forbidding marriage with multiple wives.

And exactly how does this affect the amount of children a woman will have?

Also consider that many in today's time, have a lot of other cares to tend to.

And those in "Bibical" times did not have access to modern medicine. If infant mortality rates throughout modern third world nations are any indication of infant mortality rates in "Biblical" times, I doubt all that many of a woman's 12 children survived very long after birth.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Bob, the fertility doesn't exceed 8 anywhere in the world, not even sub-Saharan Africa. Twelve children per woman is a gross overestimation.

My grandmother had nine children.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

My grandmother had nine children.

Nice try, but Bob and I are referring to fertility rates across entire countries. Sorry for the confusion; I was watching "Coming To America" earlier, was a bit distracted, and wasn't quite as clear as I should have been.

 

[macguy]

I'm not arguing that they do, but that Bob's claim is false. Sub-Saharan Africa's fertility rate is not 12...it's not even 8.

Where does he say anything in regards to Africa's fertility rate? My confusion arose because you didn't quote what you were responding too which gave me the impression that you were responding to the previous post that Bob b composed.

This should be interesting...

Um, okay...

"Rather optimistic" is quite the understatement.

Not really, as my family is around 10 but this is the case for those who have the time and willingness to do it. The fertility rates don't tell us the reason why the rates are the way they are. Facts of course only become interesting when we try to explain them.

What do you consider Biblical times?

If you read Bob's post, you'll understand that I was referring to in the times of Joseph and onward to reach the amount that Bob concluded.

Oh, and statistics show that the average life span of humans has increased over the past several thousand years...not decreased.

Yes due to man-made medicines which increase the survival. That has nothing to do with the average life span on earth. Living up to 150 years is certainly a feasible concept...never really looked for the data of life expectancy under science to be honest but I'll get back to you.

And exactly how does this affect the amount of children a woman will have?

It effects the number of children that these sons have. I am getting the impression that we are talking about different things here.

And those in "Bibical" times did not have access to modern medicine.

Assuming that the life exptency was around 150 years back in the day, then we can also rightly conclude that many were healthier back in the day.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Where does he say anything in regards to Africa's fertility rate?

In Post #4 and in the thread that prompted this thread.

Not really, as my family is around 10 but this is the case for those who have the time and willingness to do it.

Which is a very slim number of families throughout the Western world. And by the way, what does "around 10" even mean?! You don't know how many brothers and sisters you have?

Yes due to man-made medicines which increase the survival. That has nothing to do with the average life span on earth.

What in the world are you even talking about? The statistics I provided have EVERYTHING to do with that average life span on Earth! You know, that kind of was the reason I provided a link to the table.

Living up to 150 years is certainly a feasible concept

It is so feasible that, barring mythical accounts, it has never been observed/recorded in written history. The oldest age someone has ever lived to was 122; and that is a very rare occurence. Sometimes it seems as if Christians try to create "facts" out of thin air.

It effects the number of children that these sons have. I am getting the impression that we are talking about different things here.

I am talking about fertility rates. The amount of wives a man can take will likely have little effect on the fertility rate (unless there were to be some sort of shortage of men).

Assuming that the life exptency was around 150 years back in the day...

Why would I assume such a silly notion? Evidence directly suggests that the further we travel back through history, the shorter the average life spans are of human beings. I'll stick with the evidence. You can keep your myths.

...then we can also rightly conclude that many were healthier back in the day.

So you are saying there is an inverse relationship between the development of modern medicine and the average human life span? Oh, and if humans were healthier "back in the day", then why did you say...

Yes due to man-made medicines which increase the survival.

Macguy, are you confused?

 

[Hank]

There is a historical parallel to guide us in population growth when starting with small numbers. This is the example of Joseph's brothers coming to live with him in Egypt. 400 some years later there were
600,000 of them not counting women and children.
As a check let us use the approach of enumeration.
Starting with the original 8:------------------------------------------0
3 sons have 12 children - 8 + 36 = 44-----------------------------30
18 sons have 12 - 8 + 36 + 216 = 260-------------------------------60
108 sons have 12 - 8 + 36 + 216 + 1296 = 1556-----------------------90
648 sons have 12 - 8 + 36 + 216 + 1296 + 7776 = 9332--------------120
3888 sons have 12 - 8 + 36 + 216 + 1296 + 7776 + 46656 = 55988------150
20828 sons have 12 - 8 + 36 + 216 + 1296 + 7776 + 46656 + 279936 = ?-180
Total population after 180 years and 6 generations = 335,924

This of course is optimistic by todays standards, but the Bible claims
great ages for people, decreasing gradually after the Flood. So the
optimism may actually be conservative because in many parts of the world
even today many families have MORE than 12 children. I have allowed for 30
years per generation (18 + 1 child per year) which may also be conservative.
The point of this is not to make a prediction but only to show that it is
conceivable that 400 years may be a feasible time in which to grow a sizable
nation. Notice that if each generation dies after bearing children the
total is only changed by a small amount.

You have stated that the number of children born by each female is amazingly high in sub-Sahara Africa. Even so they have a growth rate of about 2.5% which is local and not sustainable. The numbers you just calculated have a growth rate of 6% or about 2.5 times this “amazingly high” rate in sub-Sahara Africa. You have not allowed for infant mortality, women’s death in childbirth, or women’s infertility. Nor have you allowed for any death at all. The numbers you use are ridiculous and completely unsupportable, which you have basically admitted by saying the birth rate in sub-Sahara Africa is amazingly high. Not even the Bible indicates families had 12 children or more for the most part. For instance Noah is recorded as having only 3 sons. And that's somewhat typical when looking at the different genealogies that are recorded. Of course they could have had many more children but only the ones that were recorded lived to adulthood.

The major parameter influencing the result is simply the average number of children born of each woman!

That's only half the equation. The death rate is the other half.

 

[macguy]

In Post #4 and in the thread that prompted this thread.

Haha, I noticed you put Bob b as the person who wrote the quote. I thought you were responding to his last post but regardless he stated his source.

Bob b:
The most important factor is the number of children born by each female, which according to the UN is amazingly high in subSahara Africa.

Notice that he doesn't say "I think the fertility rate is amazingly high"...We do have to ask him for the link though as some are most likely lazy enough to search for it. He however, didn't state that the fertility rate is around 12. How are you arriving at this conclusion? We are talking about different things! Don't you realize that? What's with all the accusations...

Which is a very slim number of families throughout the Western world. And by the way, what does "around 10" even mean?! You don't know how many brothers and sisters you have?

Yes, a slim amount but it's nevertheless again possible for those who have the money, time and willingness to do so. I never once argued that this number of families is the norm. No, I don't know how many Uncle's and Aunt's that I have specifically. Many of them are separated and I asked how many are in my mom's side of the family a while ago...

What in the world are you even talking about? The statistics I provided have EVERYTHING to do with that average life span on Earth! You know, that kind of was the reason I provided a link to the table.

The average life span on earth has nothing to do with the historical life span which you are implying. People are capable of living 150 years as is shown by people who live around that age today...Clearly not impossible in the slightest way. The ages were decreasing and then increased because of the rise of medicine and not because of natural means.

It is so feasible that, barring mythical accounts, it has never been observed/recorded in written history.

It would be expected that such occurrences cannot be observed because that's the past! All that is need is to show that it's a feasible concept and evidence is what I am investigating at the moment. I would love to show you but doing so would requires that you'd read a book called Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome which gives scientific evidence for it. Of course I don't expect you to go read it so I am looking for some internet resources. Did you just completely ignore that comment?

I am talking about fertility rates.

I am not talking about fertility rates at present but in the past from a biblical perspective. This is why our debate is pointless. We are talking about different things.

Why would I assume such a silly notion?

Never said that you had to assume such a notion... I merely said it for the sake of argument and nothing more.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Haha, I noticed you put Bob b as the person who wrote the quote. I thought you were responding to his last post but regardless he stated his source.

Bob b:
The most important factor is the number of children born by each female, which according to the UN is amazingly high in subSahara Africa.

Notice that he doesn't say "I think the fertility rate is amazingly high"...We do have to ask him for the link though as some are most likely lazy enough to search for it. He however, didn't state that the fertility rate is around 12. How are you arriving at this conclusion? We are talking about different things! Don't you realize that? What's with all the accusations...

I will chalk this entire point up to a tad bit of confusion. With all the talk of fertility rates, population growth rates, and 12 children per family [Bob B, Post #5], I don't think we are even on the same page in regard to this issue. Or the same chapter. We may be in the same book, but I'm not even counting on that. :chuckle:

Yes, a slim amount but it's nevertheless again possible for those who have the money, time and willingness to do so.

No objection.

The average life span on earth has nothing to do with the historical life span which you are implying.

You will have to elaborate upon this, because I can't seem to make out what you are saying. We are discussing the average life span on Earth. I cited statistics relating to the historical average life span on Earth. YEC's claim that humans in Biblical times lived much longer than the average Joe today. The statistics I cited suggest a very different scenario; one of gradually decreasing life spans the further one looks into the past. To sum it up, science concludes that humans in Biblical times (which I am assuming is 4,000-6,000 years ago) lived much shorter [on average] than modern humans. You contend the opposite. Now, do you have any extra-Biblical evidence to support this contention?

People are capable of living 150 years as is shown by people who live around that age today

As I stated earlier, the oldest a human has ever lived (on record) is 122 years. That is 28 years shy of 150! Besides that, it is extremely rare for someone to live beyond the age of 100.

The ages were decreasing and then increased because of the rise of medicine and not because of natural means.

Maybe you can give me a timeline? Approximately when did humans live to the ripe old age of 150, when did their average life spans decrease, and when did they begin to increase due to modern medicine?

It would be expected that such occurrences cannot be observed because that's the past! All that is need is to show that it's a feasible concept and evidence is what I am investigating at the moment. I would love to show you but doing so would requires that you'd read a book called Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome which gives scientific evidence for it. Of course I don't expect you to go read it so I am looking for some internet resources. Did you just completely ignore that comment?

When you have evidence that it is feasible for a person to live to the age of 150, get back to me. Then once you do that, you can provide evidence that it is feasible for someone to live to 930 [Adam].

And I apologize for my somewhat indignant tone, but it is beyond me how anyone can conclude that the current global population could have been reached in such an incredibly short amount of time (4,000-6,000 years). It just boggles my mind.

 

[bob b]

POPULATION GROWTH RATES

Joseph and his brothers
As a check let us use the approach of enumeration.
Starting with the original 12 sons----------------------------------0
12 sons have 8 children each - 24+96 = 120------------------- 25
48 sons have 8 - 24+96+384 = 504------------------------------50
192 sons have 8 - 24+96+384+1536 = 2040--------------------75
768 sons have 8 - 24+96+384+1536+6144 = 8184------------100
3072 sons have 8 - 24+96+384+1536+6144+24576 = 32,760 --125
12288 sons have 8 -24+96+384+1536+6144+24576+98304 = 131,064--150
48152 sons have 8 -24+96+384+1536+6144+24576+98304+385216 = 516,280 -- 175
Total population after 175 years and 7 generations = 516,280

If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 385,216

This demonstrates the "magic" of compound interest.

The Bible says that 400 years after the brothers moved to Egypt their descendants had grown to 600,000 men, not counting women and children.

 

[chrysostom]

I am still interested in your estimate as to when the population will reach 7 billion

Also do you support the theory that there are more people alive today than have ever died?

 

[bob b]

POPULATION GROWTH RATES

Joseph and his brothers – assume 6 children per son
As a check let us use the approach of enumeration.
Starting with the original 12 sons-------------------------------0
12 sons have 6 children each - 24+72 = 96------------------ 22
36 sons have 6 - 24+72+216 = 312---------------------------44
108 sons have 6 - 24+72+216+648 = 960--------------------66
324 sons have 6 - 24+72+216+648+1944 = 2904-----------88
972 sons have 6 - 24+72+216+648+1944+5832 = 8736 --110
2916 sons have 6 - 24+72+216+648+1944+5832+17496 = 26232--132
8748 sons have 6 - 24+72+216+648+1944+5832+17496+52488 = 78720 -- 154
26244 sons have 6 - 24+72+216+648+1944+5832+17496+52488+157464 = 236184

Total population after 176 years and 8 generations = 236,184

If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 157,464

This demonstrates the "magic" of compound interest.

The Bible says that 400 years after the brothers moved to Egypt their descendants had grown to 600,000 men, not counting women and children.

With 224 more years (10 more generations) to reach 600,000 men, I think it obvious that the Bible account is well within the range of feasibility, even if one assumes that the growth rate typically slows down as the population size increases.