European Tribune

Display:
Anders Johansen (UCLA), Didier Sornette (CNRS/Univ. Nice;UCLA) Finite-time singularity in the dynamics of the world population, economic and financial indices Physica A 294 (3-4), 465-502 (15 May 2001)
Contrary to common belief, both the Earth's human population and its economic output have grown faster than exponential, i.e., in a super-Malthusian mode, for most of the known history. These growth rates are compatible with a spontaneous singularity occuring at the same critical time 2052 +- 10 signaling an abrupt transition to a new regime. The degree of abruptness can be infered from the fact that the maximum of the world population growth rate was reached in 1970, i.e., about 80 years before the predicted singular time, corresponding to approximately 4% of the studied time interval over which the acceleration is documented. This rounding-off of the finite-time singularity is probably due to a combination of well-known finite-size effects and friction and suggests that we have already entered the transition region to a new regime. In theoretical support, a multivariate analysis coupling population, capital, R&D and technology shows that a dramatic acceleration in the population during most of the timespan can occur even though the isolated dynamics do not exhibit it. Possible scenarios for the cross-over and the new regime are discussed. Nottale, Chaline and Grou have recently independently applied a log-periodic analysis to the main crises of different civilisations. It is striking that these two independent analyses based on a different data set gives a critical time which is compatible within the error bars.
2045? 2052+/-10? I'm going to have a very interesting 70th birthday.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 19th, 2006 at 12:02:05 PM EST
Dear Migeru,
Given your background in physics (I'm sure that you read TWF with far more comprehension that I do), I'd be interested to see your remarks on the nanotechnology aspect of Kurzweil's vision. I take the essence of it to be that a wide range of structures can be built with atomic precision by manipulating reactive molecules under digital control (a bit like what ribosomes do), and that the productivity of systems that do this can be very high (millionfold scale-down of size => millionfold scale-up of mechanical frequencies ~~=> millionfold greater throughput per unit mass).

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Thu Jan 19th, 2006 at 08:13:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh, my dissertation advisor writes TWF...

I don't know why you keep asking me to write about nanotechnology... I don't have anything cogent to say about it, or maybe I do... Why don't you write a diary about it so I can react to it?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jan 20th, 2006 at 06:16:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry for this repeat, but I didn't know whether you'd seen my previous query. I'll drop you a note with a bit of background.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Fri Jan 20th, 2006 at 08:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Drop me a diary, honest.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 21st, 2006 at 05:20:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, balderdash.

There is no way to know how fast population and economic output has grown for most of known history because we have no idea of what the economic output of Rome (say), neither do we know what the population of Rome was - and our sources for Roman history are surprisingly good.    

Second, don't trust single-run multivariate state analysis of dynamic environments.  

Third, physicists should stick to rolling their balls down inclined planes and stop trying to foist the simplicities of physics on everyone.  ;-)

A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

by ATinNM on Fri Jan 20th, 2006 at 09:58:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If only everyone else stopped thinking that physics is simple... That's pure 19th century mechanistic thinking.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jan 20th, 2006 at 09:59:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Everything is simple if you ignore the complexity.

How to Build a Time Machine

Rotate 90 degrees from the Space/Time Temporal vector and voila! reenter at any point you wish.  

(Isn't n-dimensional Geometry wonderful?)

I submit this is the kind of thinking K and his merry band use to make their argument.

For the record: I don't think physics is simple.


A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run

by ATinNM on Fri Jan 20th, 2006 at 10:45:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For the record, I think physicists generally understand dynamical systems better than others. It's the others who think physics is about rolling balls down inclines and hence irrelevant.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jan 20th, 2006 at 11:45:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Everything is simple if you ignore the complexity.
As Feynman said,
Nothing is 'mere'.


Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jan 20th, 2006 at 11:51:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As a matter of fairness, if you offer an example of "the kind of thinking K and his merry band use", then it should be an actual example of his thinking. It is one thing to decide that someone is a fool and then to illustrate why you think so. It is quite different to make up an idiocy and semi-attribute it to someone, because you have (on some other evidence) decided that he is a fool.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Thu Jan 26th, 2006 at 02:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series