09-19-2009, 05:59 PM
Hi,
Of course, the model is insufficient to handle the extremes of a zero birth rate for an extended period. The 'large number' approximation that the model is based on will fail, and the death rate will change as the remaining population ages. However, a decline in population of more than 1%, at this time, is not really possible without actually killing people.
And that is also the answer to '70 years is too long'. There are other options, including selective use of CBRN, but none that are acceptable to the sane mind.
--Pete
Quote:1% is too small, and 70 years is too long to wait.I admit to using too simple a model (growth rate = crude birth rate - crude death rate + net immigration rate). However, it is a good enough model for first approximations. Now, if we are applying it to the world as a whole, 'net immigration rate' is zero. From that it follows that the highest possible negative rate is if the 'crude birth rate' is also zero. That would make the highest possible rate about 0.8%
Of course, the model is insufficient to handle the extremes of a zero birth rate for an extended period. The 'large number' approximation that the model is based on will fail, and the death rate will change as the remaining population ages. However, a decline in population of more than 1%, at this time, is not really possible without actually killing people.
And that is also the answer to '70 years is too long'. There are other options, including selective use of CBRN, but none that are acceptable to the sane mind.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?