NoelBWrites

Noel B

@NoelBWrites

I like writing and writing byproducts
🧉💜✨🌹

log inask
NoelBWrites
@NoelBWrites

Am I the dumbass? Am I the one that doesn't understand what "exponential" means??

If the fertility rate is above 2.1 even slightly, the population will experience exponential growth. It will double more slowly the lower the fertility rate, but it will double nonetheless

From Sustainability Principles and Practice by Margaret Robertson.

Like that's... If "the population will eventually double over a long enough timeline, provided nothing changes" is your definition of "exponential growth" then anything can be exponential?? Linear growth is also exponential. How is this a useful framework at all

If I ever encounter this woman in real life I'll have no choice but to engage her in single combat

You must log in to comment.

in reply to @NoelBWrites's post:

modulusshift
@modulusshift

I mean, this is correct, because the .1 multiplies with each iteration, making it exponential if this were a true math problem (I'd say y=(2.1/2)^x probably), but you'd think someone with any interest in ecology would understand the idea of a carrying capacity of an environment and how populations tend to s-curve as they approach them. We've done amazing work towards increasing that carrying capacity but it's gotta hit us eventually. Well before 2.1 meaningfully reaches exponentialness anyway. (Graph this line alongside most linear and quadratic lines and this one takes a long time to get going)

login to reply
NoelBWrites
@NoelBWrites

Right so what I'm wondering now is how is this a useful framework, if any growth at all is exponential?

It really sounds like the only reason to even bring up the word is fear-mongering because we've spent the entire chapter until now setting up how "exponential" = out of control rapid growth that'll consume the planet. Down to an "example" graph showing what an exaggerated exponential curve looks next to a linear one (no axis labels or anything, this is purely to show the scary shapes)

And like you said, populations reaching the carrying capacity tend to s curve. Which is exactly what we see in the human population right now, the growth rate has been lower every year for a while now

login to reply
garak
@garak

There's no reason to believe this person knows what "exponential" actually means as seen by the use of "approximately" to mean "the opposite of" in that fucking graph caption.

That said, there's technically no actual errors in the quoted text. Quite a lot of important facts missing, but nothing that is actually stated is factually incorrect about exponential behavior.

It's an incredibly bad explanation of exponential growth. A person who completely doesn't understand exponential growth could have written it. Equally likely is that it could have been written by someone whose understanding is correct but who is terminally bad at explaining things. The average reader who does not already know what exponential growth is will walk away with a very incorrect idea of what it means, and there is not even a very good chance it would be the same incorrect idea as the author.

login to reply
NoelBWrites
@NoelBWrites

Yeah, I guess I'm mostly wondering how anything in this text is a useful framework to understand anything, let alone act on that understanding. It does this a lot where it's "technically" correct but there sure are a lot of facts missing.

She also does this when talking about how rich countries "have room to improve their consumption patterns" and poorer countries "have room for improvement in reducing their population growth" in the same sentence, then talks about how many years it took the human population to double through history.

And... Sure, both of those things are true but... I can't help but feel there's some context missing in just how much higher consumption per capita is in "rich" countries. Or how birth rates plummet whenever a country experiences economic growth.

You'd think those are useful things to understand if we are talking about the Earth's carrying capacity for humans, but... Nah, let's see how close we can get to saying "eugenics are good" without actually saying it

login to reply
Pinned Tags