logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Important people in the history of demography
eklanche
#1 Posted : Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:36:33 AM(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1
Location: Ann Arbor

I am currently writing a dissertation on the history of global population projection in the twentieth century, and am hoping to cover most of the major developments in twentieth century demography (projection methods, fertility measures, stable population model and its applications, indirect estimation, demographic transition theory, data collection/archiving/sharing, etc.). Who are the important people I should talk to who are still alive and where can I find them?
karengaia
#2 Posted : Friday, August 26, 2011 11:28:03 AM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Groups: Approved, Registered
Joined: 8/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 19
Location: Sacramento

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
For your dissertation, Paul Erlich may have some of the information you need.

Try the Population Reference Bureau and the UN http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/

Also look up USAID and family planning

Try looking up the Club of Rome and Population.

See Wikipedia Limits to Growth; also "overpopulation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Demographic_transition

http://webcache.googleus...tion&hl=en&gl=us
karengaia
#3 Posted : Friday, August 26, 2011 7:58:14 PM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Groups: Approved, Registered
Joined: 8/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 19
Location: Sacramento

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I did some more searching and there are a lot of references on Bruce Sundquist's website at http://home.windstream.n...sundquist1/reflist.html

He says: I think the easiest way to approach the issue is to check the reference citations in the various population-related documents on my website. Some names pop up frequently. They are sure bets. Finding them would probably involve some Google searches.
Val
#4 Posted : Thursday, October 6, 2011 8:11:37 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
There was one guy in old posts at http://www.theenvironmentsite.org who had done a more accurate projection
a year before Ehrlich's book came out. It was an unpublished Advanced Biology Term Paper by "mgopilot". His projection at that time correctly showed 6 billion at the turn of the century, unlike Ehrlich's, which was apparently a completion of the initial hyperbolic curve, done without reference to actual mammal population curves. Mgopilot had
used those mammal population curves to complete the partial human population curve at that time. He drew a connection to estimated oil depletion as a "trigger", but not necessary for the 2050 crash from under 9 Billion.
It is interesting because I took Prof. Al Bartlett's course on Exponential Math and Advanced Biology with Population Science as part of that at Colorado State University in Boulder in the early 1990s. I did curves for population projection then which aligned with mgopilot's statements from his study 25 years before. Since then I have been able to add in the fact that oil depletion, AGW, soil depletion, and aquifer depletion will be more than just triggers, but cumulative causes.
Of course, Ehrlich and others have also done projections since then that are more accurate. It is interesting and disappointing that the UN chooses to believe human population will reach 9.2 to 10.1 billion and stabilize there, when that is a clear impossibility with the known rates of depletion of the above resources and the greater than worst case vector for AGW.
Another pioneer in overpopulation, with numerous books to prove it, is Lindsey Grant (author of "Elephants in the Volkswagen", "Juggernaut", and "Too Many People" to name some).
Val
#5 Posted : Tuesday, May 8, 2012 9:16:33 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
http://www.cosmosmith.co...ges/memorial_of_man.gif
cosmosmith also has a population clock and calculator of dubious interest (easy letdown scenario)
http://www.cosmosmith.co...an_population_crisis.htm
Val
#6 Posted : Sunday, July 1, 2012 1:51:22 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Peter Goodchild certainly has his population predictions with relentless logic behind it:
"By Peter Goodchild

30 August, 2011
Countercurrents.org

A time frame for systemic collapse can be extrapolated easily from the on-line document The Coming Chaos, an abridgement of a larger text (see link below). The most significant page is at the start of the text, the chart of estimated past and future oil production. Most of the other time frames will parallel that curve. Then one can look at the chapter on electricity, which as Richard Duncan says will be the first really distinct, “on-off” type of indicator. The next parallel can be found in the chapter on economics, which mentions two "phases," divided by the point at which money as such is no longer an important means of exchange; past examples occurred with the crash of the USSR, and in Weimar Germany.

In the chapter on famine, the fall of population appears as a parallel to the fall in fossil fuels. Some critics have said that the two do not necessarily go together -- or, rather, “fall” together. But they do, for a very simple mathematical reason. Fossil fuels are the source of more than 90 percent of the energy -- in the strict "physics" sense of the word -- in modern industrial society. If we take away 90 percent of the energy, we necessarily take away 90 percent of the population. (If we take away 100 percent of the energy, we necessarily take away 100 percent of the population.) No, we cannot replace that 90 percent with some "alternative" form of energy, as is explained in chapter one, because there isn't enough of any “alternative” to make much difference.

The same first chapter also illustrates why a voluntary reduction in population cannot work. (For that matter, neither would a mandatory reduction in population, and for the same reason.) Again, it's simple arithmetic. Oil production will fall, over the next few decades, by about 3 percent annually, and if instead we say 2 percent or 4 percent the final result isn't much different. But even if every woman on earth stopped having children from this day forward, there would still not be a 3 or 2 or 4 percent annual reduction in population.

It can be seen, therefore, that the curve of estimated past and future global oil production is not merely one of a myriad of problems with which mankind will have to deal. It is the time scale with which most other problems can be measured, and it is the cause of most other problems.

But if anyone really needs a magic number, a good choice would be 2030. That's the date at which, with a 3 percent annual decline in oil production, the year's production will be half of that in the peak year. And half of peak oil means half of everything else in human society. A very important “half” will be population, because the other half will have died of famine. And that's the one item that very few people can mentally assimilate."
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 1.9.5.5 | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.086 seconds.