“You are using false assumptions, so you get obviously false results. You are for some reson blind to the false assumptions, which are so blindingly obvious to others.”
Excuse me? What assumptions have I made or what results have I stated? Maybe you have me confused with the original poster?
“The argument about contractions fails to take into account that, when you assume a large age, like 100,000 years, then the few years of negative growth become even more insignificant when looking at the aggregate growth rate. If we were only 5,000 years old, then the periods you cite are significant, but at 100,000 years old, a century or two of negative growth is negligible.”
Low population growth, virtually no population growth, and negative population growth for tens of thousands of years results in a poplulation of less than 1 million people aft some 250,000 years. So, the admonition that you are using false assumptions about the population growth rates and the significance of populaton declines is directly relvant to waht you posted above. You cannot just wave a hand in dismissal of the factors which had negative effects upon the rate of human populatio growth. Those negative factors had a profound impact upon the limitation of human population growth until the time came when technologies made it possible for much higher population growth rates and averages to offset the lack of such population growth rates in the earlier millenia.
36 posted on Friday, February 22, 2013 9:08:24 AM by Boogieman