Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
How evidence-direct are the estimates?

Let's translate the numbers into implied doubling periods:
10000 BC - 400 BC: 2055 years;
400 BC - 0: 556 years;
0 - 200: 7056 years;
200 - 600: minus 1311 years ("decay");
600 - 1000: 1416 years;
1000 - 1200: 303 years;
1200 - 1340: 972 years;
1340 - 1400: minus 253 years;
1400 - 1500: 336 years;
1500 - 1600: 306 years;
1600 - 1700: 427 years;
1700 - 1750: 276 years;
1750 - 1800: 163 years;
1800 - 1850: 132 years;
1850 - 1900: 126 years;
1900 - 1950: 80 years;
1950 - 2000: 38 years.

That is a wild variation. And the industrial "singularity" is staggering, isn't it?

For comparison, the implied biblical doubling period is about 190 years.

by das monde on Thu Jul 2nd, 2015 at 10:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Post-1500 that's a stable superexponential trend. Prior to that, the resolution is too poor to distinguish between an exponential and a superexponential trend.

I cannot prove, but would not be surprised to find, that a large part of the superexponentiality of the post-1500 is simply an artifact of more fine-meshed census efforts. Getting better at counting almost always means you find more of what you are counting.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 3rd, 2015 at 03:56:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
das monde:
How evidence-direct are the estimates?

Livi-Bacci gets the numbers (except 1950 and 2000, those are from the UN) from Essai sur l'évolution du nombre des hommes on JSTOR.

by fjallstrom on Fri Jul 3rd, 2015 at 05:24:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series