Human Population Growth

[Unikornus]

Human population growth is an anomaly not the norm apparently

https://qz.com/1216675/much-of-the-modern-world-is-explained-by-one-population-spike/

EDIT: To sum it up, for most of the human history, the population growth barely hovered above zero growth until 1700s when Industrial Revolution hit which resulted in large boosts in the population growth. With each subsequent technology discovery/innovation came with more population growth. Now in advanced industrialized countries, the population is starting to stagnate. The "Third World" countries are still in their own growth but the idea is that eventually the entire planet's population growth will stagnate and perhaps decrease and we return to barely above the zero growth rate.

 

[Olleus]

What an insane graph.

The main feature is the peak, yet the whole downside of that peak is prediction and not data.
And I have no idea how they obtained an accurate value for population growth during the Neolithic.

The story might be true, but I don't see what the evidence for it is.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Actually population started to grow as soon as the agricultural revolution, and that, regularly from since. The industrial revolution dramatically increased this growth though. Fun fact : before the agricultural revolution, the population didn't grow at all, or at least not before the cognitive revolution which happened around 40000. (hence the colonization of the whole earth by homo sapiens) Not sure if the graphic i'm referring to considered other homos though. Unfortunately i can't seem to be able to find it back. I looked for such things when elaborating ideas for Civ, but it often became so complicated (i even saved a data about 'dispersion', it is to say how animal migrate for food or else, in order to understand better how and why homo sapiens did conquered the whole planet, kept for future thinking) that i gave it up usually.

 

[Absolution]

Human population growth is an anomaly not the norm apparently

https://qz.com/1216675/much-of-the-modern-world-is-explained-by-one-population-spike/

EDIT: To sum it up, for most of the human history, the population growth barely hovered above zero growth until 1700s when Industrial Revolution hit which resulted in large boosts in the population growth. With each subsequent technology discovery/innovation came with more population growth. Now in advanced industrialized countries, the population is starting to stagnate. The "Third World" countries are still in their own growth but the idea is that eventually the entire planet's population growth will stagnate and perhaps decrease and we return to barely above the zero growth rate.

If they Industrial Revolution is the greatest trigger for poppulation growth, how is it that the most poppulous regions in the world now are those who were introduced to industrialisation quite late?
Obviously those regions (the South & East Asia circle) had been highly poppulate well before the Industrial Revolution kicked off in Europe.
Was their growth rate at around zero as well, at that time?

 

[innonimatu]

The place with early industrialization was western Europe, already densely populated. But population there had the emigration "escape valve", into America mostly. Whereas when industrialization later reached America in full the continent was still mostly empty.

 

[schlaufuchs]

If they Industrial Revolution is the greatest trigger for poppulation growth, how is it that the most poppulous regions in the world now are those who were introduced to industrialisation quite late?
Obviously those regions (the South & East Asia circle) had been highly poppulate well before the Industrial Revolution kicked off in Europe.
Was their growth rate at around zero as well, at that time?

The place with early industrialization was western Europe, already densely populated. But population there had the emigration "escape valve", into America mostly. Whereas when industrialization later reached America in full the continent was still mostly empty.

I mean, it must also be said in addition to what you said, that Europe, and in particular the countries which were the primary beneficiaries of the Industrial Revolution (namely Great Britain, France, Germany, Benelux, and to a lesser extent Austria-Hungary and Italy), are quite a bit smaller in terms of land area and productive capacity than, say, India+China. Add in the fact that those were two extremely populous regions even pre-industrialization and, yeah, it's not that surprising.

 

[Zardnaar]

The populations were bigger pre industrialization.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Europé actually saw large growth rate but it peeked earlier than poorer countries that have seen industralization later. If you think the growth rate is crazy, human productivity have increased at an even crazier rate. For example an computer today is maybe a billion time better than one built in 50s, being much more powerful at a much lower cost. To maintain a large population you need to have large productivity of absolute necessities so productivity have to come Before population growth and unlike the population growth, human productivity keep increasing, in maybe many cases even faster than it did when the industrial revolution started.

Just the difference between 50 last years is pretty massive, population doubled but World wealth grew 8 times (on an already huge wealth) meaning average wealth per person increased about 3 times.

Basically increase in production and other Technologies have allowed for a large population which lead to population growth but eventually the technology have gotten so advanced that education and work ethics limit the ability to support Children which mean reduced population growth while the economy still growth at an exponentional rate (accelerating), in absolute terms the economy growth more now than it probably have ever done in history which mean the industrial revolution is far from dead.

Some say that technology have advanced more in just the 20 years of 21th Century than it did during the whole 20th Century (which is normally seen as a golden age of technology), some would say this is how technology work and that this have been so during whole human existance more or less.

The curve look very wrong because it assume population will die as quickly as it grow but that don't seems true, more like it flattens but it don't matter much because in the future human Labour is likely going to be obsolete since machines may do Everything better than humans can do.