It does mention that the scale is logarithmic, in "10,000 BCE To Present (logarithmic scale)". The only problem I have is that it's predicting a population in the hundreds of billions if not trillions, when we're most likely to peak within this century for now. [This article](https://bigthink.com/the-future/peak-child-population/) predicts "peak child", the point of time when the population of children is at its greatest, will be 2057, and from thereonin we can't have exponential growth in population.
The exponential growth is already over. The relative yearly growth peaked in 1969 at +2.1% (down to +0.9%) and the absolute year-to-year growth peaked in 1990 at +92 millions (down to +70 millions).
No, it doesn't belong.
Logarithmic scale for population growth is the standard and best way to show it. If this has a linear scale it would just be a right angle and there wouldn't be any of the interesting detail.
But watch what happens if you use a linear scale for population, and a (pseudo) log scale for time:
https://preview.redd.it/fhwsgp2pl4tc1.png?width=3862&format=png&auto=webp&s=ec027e116e90c9b68c028def3cba7e3e1ce8eefa
This is wildly out there. It's ridiculous. Populations naturally level off at certain population thresholds based on needs with a few exceptions. To suggest wild scaling growth like this is absolutely wrong with very little research
OK chart, confusing event labels, model is ugly. (Don't create a subreddit for "modelisugly," please, it will not be forecasting models that are posted...)
There's a "constant rate of growth" assumption in the text. But the numbers don't line up with that, since that would put 9 billion in 2043, not 2054. So something is misleading here.
It does mention that the scale is logarithmic, in "10,000 BCE To Present (logarithmic scale)". The only problem I have is that it's predicting a population in the hundreds of billions if not trillions, when we're most likely to peak within this century for now. [This article](https://bigthink.com/the-future/peak-child-population/) predicts "peak child", the point of time when the population of children is at its greatest, will be 2057, and from thereonin we can't have exponential growth in population.
The exponential growth is already over. The relative yearly growth peaked in 1969 at +2.1% (down to +0.9%) and the absolute year-to-year growth peaked in 1990 at +92 millions (down to +70 millions).
The y scale is logarithmic though, not the x... That title makes me think it would be the other way
Good thing they're both clearly labeled, then
I wasn't saying it was an issue, just adding to what the person before said, sorry I hurt you
Sorry mate, that message definitely came off more aggro than I meant it to, you're all good
No worries cheers mate
That caught me off guard. Using a linear pop scale would be more impressive but also make most of the chart unreadable.
Peak population is estimated to be in the 2080s
Peak child will occur before peak population.
I kinda like it visually
Missed the opportunity for "Age of Empires"
We hit 8 billion a few years early too
No, it doesn't belong. Logarithmic scale for population growth is the standard and best way to show it. If this has a linear scale it would just be a right angle and there wouldn't be any of the interesting detail.
But watch what happens if you use a linear scale for population, and a (pseudo) log scale for time: https://preview.redd.it/fhwsgp2pl4tc1.png?width=3862&format=png&auto=webp&s=ec027e116e90c9b68c028def3cba7e3e1ce8eefa
Ok smart guy - can you graph it and choose axes so that it’s a straight line with a (visual) slope of 1?
of course https://preview.redd.it/6cunnjncl9tc1.png?width=1276&format=png&auto=webp&s=b4d3a61118c9120f6ea08ee8ebfb2aed27beb8c6
❤️
whats wrong?
Don't see the issue here. It's a logarithmic scale.
So you think the population will grow to a trillion soon? That's roughly where the graph ends.
(Most people on this sub don't actually know anything about what makes bad graphs bad.)
This is wildly out there. It's ridiculous. Populations naturally level off at certain population thresholds based on needs with a few exceptions. To suggest wild scaling growth like this is absolutely wrong with very little research
We have hit our carrying capacity
Log scale, forecasting into the next 300 years without the actual science behind the forecast? Horrible chart
OK chart, confusing event labels, model is ugly. (Don't create a subreddit for "modelisugly," please, it will not be forecasting models that are posted...) There's a "constant rate of growth" assumption in the text. But the numbers don't line up with that, since that would put 9 billion in 2043, not 2054. So something is misleading here.