Very Interesting Video

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Very Interesting Video

Post by Tudamorf » Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:24 am

AbyssalMage wrote:The rebuttel to his lecture is that growth spread over a large time frame is linear, not exponential. The reason it has become exponential is because desease and famine has been basically been put in "check" for the last 100+ years thanks to modern medicine and agriculture. Once we deplete the limited resources that make all the advancements of the last 100+ years that wiped out desease and famine, expect to see the human population growth to become more linear again.
Human growth has been exponential throughout recorded history, well beyond 100 years ago. (You can find some estimates here.)

Infant/maternal deaths don't turn the exponential function into a linear one. They lower the growth rate somewhat, but it's still exponential growth, not linear growth.

Historically we compensated for infant mortality by increasing the number of offspring per woman, so even that small drag on the function doesn't slow it down as much as you'd think.

The whole point of his lecture was that any sort of exponential growth, even if it looks small on a short time scale, can quickly get out of control. Like humans, on Earth.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Very Interesting Video

Post by AbyssalMage » Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:28 am

Life is LINEAR when stretched out over 1000's of years....
I even stated Life (Births) is an exponential formula and will (most likely) always will be.

Deaths are also exponential when desease/famine happen because these things have a domino effect in the region(s) they occur in. Add into the equation (the more complex one) other variables like limited resources, exhausted resources from over population, and misc. (i.e. War, natural disasters, death, ect...) and a linear formula matchs the growth of life on earth. And remember, linear lines may move in a positive or negative direction, but they don't have a exponential growth curve.

And like I stated, and he did also, things on the right hand of the collumn WILL OCCUR...
The difference is in the rebuttal, they WILL OCCUR reguardless if humans try to have 0 (Zero) growth or not. Current populations are only maintainable with modern science and technology.

Modern examples....
AIDS - (At one time...) Exponential death currently in "check" from all the medicines to help prolong an infected individual's life span. But this doesn't prevent the spread of this DEADLY virus.
Africa - Famin and Deseases that kill hundreds every day. In "check" because of world humanitarian aid.
South America/Central America - Deseases from over population (an example of what he was talking about) and natural disasters (Hurricanes) but mostly in "check" because of world humanitarian aid.
America/Canada - Deseases that Americans thought were wiped out a generation ago, are making a come back thanks to multiple reasons. Mostly in "check" thanks to America's infrastructure and medicine.
Japan/China - Desease/Famine from over population but also because of isolationism. And they are prone to many natural disasters. In "check" because of world humanitarian aid.

If you notice, world humanitarian aid is what prevents things from getting ALOT worse than it already is. Now, from his lecture, you learned that oil will slowly reach 0 (zero). Once this happens (and actually as it gets closer to zero) humanitarian aid will also go towards 0 (zero). When this happens, desease will run rappant and you will see exponential death in countries who rely heavely on humanitarian aid to stay alive. AIDS is only a hearbeat away from wiping out 50% or more of the worlds population once it no longer responds to drugs and/or we are no longer able to get the drugs to the infected people. And in the most important factor....CLEAN WATER, and we wont be having this discussion anymore, populations will become linear once again with climbs and declines like it has always been.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Very Interesting Video

Post by Tudamorf » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:33 pm

AbyssalMage wrote:Life is LINEAR when stretched out over 1000's of years....
No it isn't.

It's exponential, with food source being the limiting factor to additional growth.

So yes, if you look 10,000 years ago, you'll find stagnation in human populations simply because hunter-gatherers cannot feed themselves above a certain very low population density.

But if you starting looking 5,000 years ago, when humans began farming on a large scale, you'll see the exponential growth.

Let's take an example from over 100 years ago. In 1800, the world population was about 1 billion (according to the estimates I linked) you. In 1700, it was about 600 million. If you draw a line between those two points, it would imply that human population was rising at 400 million per century, with a population of zero at 1550. But clearly, there were plenty of humans around in 1550 (about 500 million of them).

It quite clearly isn't a linear function, and I think you're proving Bartlett's claim that "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

Well, I understand it, but you don't.
AbyssalMage wrote:Deaths are also exponential when desease/famine happen because these things have a domino effect in the region(s) they occur in.
In a very limited time frame, the deaths from a disease could be exponential.

Smallpox was certainly quite deadly in the Americans as the Europeans spread it.

So was the Black Death in Europe.

But after just a few years, once these epidemics were over, people kept on breeding and quickly made up for their losses, keeping that curve moving upwards.
AbyssalMage wrote:If you notice, world humanitarian aid is what prevents things from getting ALOT worse than it already is.
Malthus is probably rolling in his grave right now.

No, throwing food at poor countries is what's CAUSING the famine, disease, poverty, and war.

The more food you give them, the more each female can breed (see above), and the more food you will need to give them in the future, to support all of their offspring. And then their offspring breeds, causing an exponential feedback loop with your "humanitarian aid" as the catalyst.

As long as they continue to breed irresponsibly, the more food you give them, the bigger their population becomes, and the worse their problems get.

If you really wanted to provide "humanitarian aid" to these nations, you would provide permanent birth control to every female in these countries as she reaches puberty.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Very Interesting Video

Post by AbyssalMage » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:11 pm

You fail to understand what a line is therfore you cannot understand a linear model. Linear models like you so pointed out have negative and positive inclines...and if you look at the stock exchange, you would see an example of a linear model that life models (according to the rebuttal). It goes up and down (Positive and negative respectively) yet doesn't show an exponential growth. This is the closest example I can give you from the rebuttle that you would understand. But if you can't understand this simple model (I have my doubts) then the subject is dead. I am simply stating the rebuttle to his argument, made by another mathmatician at another University. And I'll point out like I did at the beginning, they agreed with his overall thesis, but not all of his work (Again, I have my doubts that you CAN understand this either).

User avatar
Klath
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:13 am

Re: Very Interesting Video

Post by Klath » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:30 am

Tudamorf wrote:No, throwing food at poor countries is what's CAUSING the famine, disease, poverty, and war.
The great philosopher, Sam Kinison, had some wise words to impart on this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN7ehccspao

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Very Interesting Video

Post by Tudamorf » Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:55 pm

AbyssalMage wrote:You fail to understand what a line is therfore you cannot understand a linear model.
Maybe I should go more slowly this time.

A line is defined by the equation y=mx + b, where m = the slope of the line and b = the the y-intercept.

A line can be defined, geometrically, by any two points on the line.

So if the graph of time (x-axis) versus human population (y-axis) is linear, I can take any two points on that line, work out the equation, and compute any other point on the line.

Clear enough?

Now let's take an example from over 100 years ago. And I only say over 100 years ago because you claim that the very nature of human growth has changed since then (it hasn't, but still).

In 1800, the world population was about 1 billion (according to the estimates I linked) you.

In 1700, it was about 600 million.

Now if this graph were a line, you could easily compute the slope m[/m] as (1,000,000,000-600,000,000)/(1800-1700)=4 million. In other words, it would imply that humans were increasing at the fixed rate of 4 million per year.

You can then work the equation back to find the x-intercept, the point where the function is zero, by calculating 1700-(600,000,000/4,000,000) = 1550.

In other words, if the function were linear, the y value (human population) would be zero at 1550, a value we clearly know is not correct.

The reason the linear formula doesn't work is because human population isn't defined by a linear formula, but an exponential one. If you graph the numbers I gave you, you'll see very clearly that it isn't a line. And if you try to apply a linear formula to any two points on an exponentially growing curve, you'll encounter the same problem each time. Because it isn't linear.

Now, the improvements in infant mortality that you're talking during the last century about have certainly increased the growth rate, but that doesn't mean the function was linear before. It was still exponential, except it was growing at a smaller rate, because the birth rate was lower (mainly due to infant mortality) and the death rate was higher (mainly due to diseases we can now prevent). In other words, the exponent was still there, it just had a smaller base.

A similar example would be investment: if you put $1,000 in an investment that makes 4% per year (and immediately reinvest all returns), and I put $1,000 in an investment that makes 5% per year, then my investment will grow faster than yours, but both of our investments will grow exponentially.

It is a simple mathematical fact that human population growth is exponential, generally until they can't feed themselves and either stop voluntarily, or die as a consequence of war, disease, or starvation. That is why the only correct level of human growth is a negative number, until humans reach a sustainable equilibrium with their environment, at which point the growth rate can level off to zero.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Very Interesting Video

Post by AbyssalMage » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:35 pm

Tudamorf wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote:You fail to understand what a line is therfore you cannot understand a linear model.
Maybe I should go more slowly this time.

A line is defined by the equation y=mx + b, where m = the slope of the line and b = the the y-intercept.

A line can be defined, geometrically, by any two points on the line.

So if the graph of time (x-axis) versus human population (y-axis) is linear, I can take any two points on that line, work out the equation, and compute any other point on the line.

Clear enough?

Now let's take an example from over 100 years ago. And I only say over 100 years ago because you claim that the very nature of human growth has changed since then (it hasn't, but still).

In 1800, the world population was about 1 billion (according to the estimates I linked) you.

In 1700, it was about 600 million.

Now if this graph were a line, you could easily compute the slope m[/m] as (1,000,000,000-600,000,000)/(1800-1700)=4 million. In other words, it would imply that humans were increasing at the fixed rate of 4 million per year.

You can then work the equation back to find the x-intercept, the point where the function is zero, by calculating 1700-(600,000,000/4,000,000) = 1550.

In other words, if the function were linear, the y value (human population) would be zero at 1550, a value we clearly know is not correct.

The reason the linear formula doesn't work is because human population isn't defined by a linear formula, but an exponential one. If you graph the numbers I gave you, you'll see very clearly that it isn't a line. And if you try to apply a linear formula to any two points on an exponentially growing curve, you'll encounter the same problem each time. Because it isn't linear.

Now, the improvements in infant mortality that you're talking during the last century about have certainly increased the growth rate, but that doesn't mean the function was linear before. It was still exponential, except it was growing at a smaller rate, because the birth rate was lower (mainly due to infant mortality) and the death rate was higher (mainly due to diseases we can now prevent). In other words, the exponent was still there, it just had a smaller base.

A similar example would be investment: if you put $1,000 in an investment that makes 4% per year (and immediately reinvest all returns), and I put $1,000 in an investment that makes 5% per year, then my investment will grow faster than yours, but both of our investments will grow exponentially.

It is a simple mathematical fact that human population growth is exponential, generally until they can't feed themselves and either stop voluntarily, or die as a consequence of war, disease, or starvation. That is why the only correct level of human growth is a negative number, until humans reach a sustainable equilibrium with their environment, at which point the growth rate can level off to zero.


Let me explain it to you SLOWLY because math must of passed you by, at least complex math, the kind the video uses.

F(x) = mx+b
m = your slope
x = variable
b = constant
Thats basic math, thats the kind of math you understand. Not the math I tried to explain to you or the one I gave you an expample of (The Stock Market). Because if this wasn't over your head, you would know that the formula you stated wouldn't work. But the stock market is considered a LINEAR problem because it uses a slope (mx) and not an exponential slope (m^x). Sorry if you missed this in math class, probably been awhile for you. Second, if you look at the stock market, (I'm sure you do), you would also notice declines. Again, the simple formula you stated doesn't work, but you hopefully realize that now. Third, NO LINEAR formula ACCURATELY predicts what will happen in the FUTURE where MULTIPLE variables are USED (even expnential ones).

Now, try using the CORRECT linear formula (a simplified version because: (A) I don't have the formula they use and (B) I doubt you will be able to understand this either) but I can try one more time. If you need more help after this, I would suspect you need to go speak to a Math professor because this is basically how the formula works.

Stocks -
-------If Profits < Expectations then use -m
m = { If Profits > Expectations then use m
-------If Profits = Expectations then m = 0 [Zero growth]

Figuring out what "m" equals is beyond the subject of this explanation and is irrelevant to it.

x = Time, I know you can understand this.
b = This is the constant, we have to have a starting point. For life (living organisms) we will assume this = 1 or if your religouse we can use 2 (because asexual reproduction isn't discussed in the bible). Reguardless, its beyond the scope of this topic or example. For the stock example, the value = 0, because it had zero money ($$$) at a difinitive point in its past.

So...

F(x) = mx + b (a linear formula)

So the question becomes.....what "m" do we use? At every point of "x" (or time) that we want to check, we have to check "m" BECAUSE "m" is going to give us our slope we NEED to use.

If you look at the stock market, you will see the exact same thing. If we check at any part of the day (x) we also need to know "how the investors are feeling (m)." And when you look at a stock report, you will see LINEAR lines going up or down. Are they exactly linear? No, but spread throughout the day (hours), day-to-day (weeks), month-to-month (years) you will see a "LINEAR" line. This is what I have been trying to explain to you. You don't see a Curvature and steep Incline like an exponential problem. Second, you could write the formula like this, and is probably how you have seen it(in math class):

----------If x < 8 a.m. then F(x) = 1/2mx + b
F(x) = { If 8 a.m. > x > 12 p.m. then F(x) = -mx + b
----------If 12 p.m. > x > 5 p.m. then F(x) = mx + b

This formula represents how stocks usually start of slow, have a downdrade around lunch (when company's hold public relseases) then rebound before the end of the day. Do they ALWAYS look like this? No, stock markets can start off negatively, start a slow gain, then really come on strong late. There are tons of scenarios that they can mimic. But we are talking about over a large time frame, something I hope you can wrap your head around. Third, the industrial revolution, when governments really started to listen to scientists and not the clergy, is where the linear line becomes more exponental. I used 1800's because this was the second wave of the "industrial revolution" where most of the technologies we use today had origins.

I have (again) explained it to you in a way I hope you can understand and used a concrete example (something you can look at, the Stock Market) to help further your understanding. Yes, I agree, the way life (human population growths) look now, it has become very exponentail and I said I agree with you on this (and the rebuttal said as much). I don't know if you always have to have the last word on everything, like many of your posts on these forums, but I am trying to enlighten you to the rebuttal of this subject. You can choose not to agree with it, which is your choice.

P.S. I needed to add the "--------" to the algebraic formula because you can't have a bunch of " " (space) for an indent, so ignore them.

User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Very Interesting Video

Post by Tudamorf » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:24 am

AbyssalMage wrote:But the stock market is considered a LINEAR problem because it uses a slope (mx) and not an exponential slope (m^x).
Funny you bring up the stock market, because although the growth isn't exactly like human growth, it too most closely resembles an exponential function.

This is a graph of the Dow Jones Industrial Average from 1900 to 2001:

Image

Does that look linear to you?
AbyssalMage wrote:No, but spread throughout the day (hours), day-to-day (weeks), month-to-month (years) you will see a "LINEAR" line. This is what I have been trying to explain to you. You don't see a Curvature and steep Incline like an exponential problem.
Wrong. Look up.
AbyssalMage wrote:Third, the industrial revolution, when governments really started to listen to scientists and not the clergy, is where the linear line becomes more exponental. I used 1800's because this was the second wave of the "industrial revolution" where most of the technologies we use today had origins.
But I gave you an example from 1700 to 1800, before your supposed revolution, that showed exponential growth.

And you can see the same all the way back to over 5,000 years ago, when humans started agriculture on a large scale and vastly increased their potential density.

Pick any two points on the line from around 3,000 BCE to today, and you'll see the exact same thing: Exponential growth. Not linear growth, exponential growth.

Got it now?

Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Very Interesting Video

Post by Fyyr » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:02 am

I loved the Sam Kinison vid, btw. Thanks.

AbyssalMage
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Very Interesting Video

Post by AbyssalMage » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:42 am

Tudamorf wrote:
AbyssalMage wrote:But the stock market is considered a LINEAR problem because it uses a slope (mx) and not an exponential slope (m^x).
Funny you bring up the stock market, because although the growth isn't exactly like human growth, it too most closely resembles an exponential function.

This is a graph of the Dow Jones Industrial Average from 1900 to 2001:

Image

Does that look linear to you?
First, obviously you didn't notice the LINEAR line from 0-50 (5 Decades)? Guess you skipped over that?
Second, the Linear Line from 50-60 (A whole DECADE)? Guess you missed that also?
Third, look at 60 - 85? Notice another Linear Line (2.5 Decades)? Guess you skipped that part also?
Fourth, look at 85 - 95? Guessed it, another Linear Line?
Fifth, look at 95-96? Yup, it GREW ALOT!!! So it has to be expenetial correct? Thats what you are argueing. But lets look, in 1 (one) year the stock exchange tripled (3x) in just one year yet hasn't grown 6x or more sense then. So, yeah, it looks exponential, and I can see why you would argue that.
BUT lets look at 96-00 you see a Linear line with a negative slope (m). Not only that, but look at todays stock exchange and it hovers at 12,300 (As of this posting). So over 10 years (Another Decade!) you have another LINEAR LINE, not an exponetial one.
AbyssalMage wrote:No, but spread throughout the day (hours), day-to-day (weeks), month-to-month (years) you will see a "LINEAR" line. This is what I have been trying to explain to you. You don't see a Curvature and steep Incline like an exponential problem.
Wrong. Look up.
Read my respons (Both of them). I can see how you were confused though (Although I did go into detail in my last post so....you know what they say about "Old dogs"?)
Now, reread the 5th point before you insert your foot any deeper.
AbyssalMage wrote:Third, the industrial revolution, when governments really started to listen to scientists and not the clergy, is where the linear line becomes more exponental. I used 1800's because this was the second wave of the "industrial revolution" where most of the technologies we use today had origins.
But I gave you an example from 1700 to 1800, before your supposed revolution, that showed exponential growth.

And you can see the same all the way back to over 5,000 years ago, when humans started agriculture on a large scale and vastly increased their potential density.

Pick any two points on the line from around 3,000 BCE to today, and you'll see the exact same thing: Exponential growth. Not linear growth, exponential growth.

Got it now?
And just like I did to the stock exchange, I can do it with that list. But again, I know you know that by now.

So, if we EXCLUDE '95 - '96 (The anomoly in the stock exchange, and if you remember your history the "Great Stock Bubble") you have a Linear Line.

So, again, I proved EVERYTHING you questioned me on and made a response to it. Unless you can prove that the Stock exchange grew 6x or more from '96 - 2011 or that the huge spike we saw was something other than an anomoly, again, prove it!

Your next post MUST contain something insightful, other than playing devils advocate, otherwise I will leave it where it sits. With you continuesly floundering like a fish on dry land.

Post Reply