Seems pretty obvious.
The population is no where near as exponential as the technology growth behind closed doors. The population rate in the USA is less than 1% and has been declining for decades.
And can you relate robot labor and zero privacy to the population rate for us, because I’m not seeing a relationship along the lines that you seem to be implying. How does increased unemployment and tracking every thought and utterance help feed “the ever growing masses”?
By that time, world population as a whole, will be indexed, without national boundaries, i suppose. the so called post colonial and developing nations are still surging at growing population rates exceeding supply and there will a time when the food supply may too, become a scarce commodity. The Malthusian curve may relax somewhat, but by that time, the US may be only one of many nations viewing into the market. The numbers are high already, but if programs of population control are not instituted, such a scenario is as certain, as the one presented with robotization.
It is expected that the death rate will soon exceed the birth rate in developed countries _ for the first time in history.
prb.org/Publications/Datashe … ation.aspx
As the ‘developing countries’ also join the family of developed ones they will likely trend towards this position too.
Malthus’ predictions never happened when he said they would. The reason is that more and more land was brought under the plough to feed the growing populations. Obviously there is a limit to the land, and so the trend he talked of may one day come to pass. But al the evidence currently suggests that as countries develop and educate their citizens, those citizens choose to restrict their fertility and have fewer children.
For example, in China the rate of population growth has dropped to less than 0.5%, this is a consequence far beyond the “one child” policy introduced 30 years ago. It’s a consequence of education and urbanisation, and - let’s face it overcrowding. So these things either tend to sort themselves out with plague and famine or people act in their own interests.
Malthus is great for rats, but people are different.
None of this has any relevance to the thread though.
Lev, and to not to beat a dead horse, the earth's population say back 500 years ago , and i am guesstimating, for the sake of time (but will look up later) was 10 percent of what it is today. The fact is, we have multiplied like rats, without thinking whether we can afford to, and it has already brought us near critical levels? The slight projected population drops, made within the contexts of predictability, most likely will pan out and have a leveling off effect, however, we are already there at the point of no return. The Malthus curve may have been exaggerated, however, the gross numbers add up to a general vindication of at least the showing of a non linear graph, up to now. What happens in another 500 years, is purely speculative, albeit reasonable to argue.
Just looked at up, and the consensus is 500 million around the year 1,500 AD. That is approx 1/14 or less then 7% of the current population.And it is noted, that most of the growth occurred the last 200 years.
"The Economist" Thursday Aug 21 2008 , Jeff Sachs : Have we beaten Malthus?
Obe, please be careful with Makthus and Malthusianism! There is much propaganda! Please be careful with concepts like “Malthus curve”, “Malthusian dilemma”, “Malthusian catastophe”, “Malthusian crisis”, “Malthusian nightmare” and so on …
Is the population always rising at a geometric rate? Is the food always growing at an arithmetic rate?
Do you know how the food has been growing since the industrial revolution?
In addition: Many of the demographic “informations” are “desinformations”.
Already during his lifetime “Malthus was criticized severely. His fellow clergymen thought he was crazy; politicians and journalists called him a heretic. But others, especially a famous economist of the time named David Ricardo, made much use of the Malthusian theory. Let’s delve a little more deeply into why Malthus came up with such heretical ideas. We will see that although his theories didn’t describe the industrial society of his own time very well, they did do a good job of describing preindustrial Europe (and perhaps certain less developed countries today).” - Economics Today
The idea that there can be a ‘point of no return’ is misconceived, and plays no part in what Malthus actually said.
Malthus was wrong. His greatest contribution was to influence Darwin who realised that the demands of resources against population was the driving force of evolution. With no pressure there is no evolution. Were we to achieve complete equilibrium, artificially maintained, the only somatic evolution we could achieve would be also artificial.
Since he wrote his thesis, mechanisation has continued to allow the resource base to outstrip population growth whilst human choice has mitigated population pressure.
Thanks Arminus, Lev, will note.
The growth rate of the world poulation has been declining since about 1968.
The reason why the world population is still growing is the fertility of the black human beings.
Compare the examples of the black poulations with the examples of the other populations:
[size=130]World| 20 |2.5 |2010|[/size]
Besides cultural (cp. e.g. decadence and so on), economical (cp. e.g. welfare , debt , terror of consumption and so on), and other reasons there are also techn(olog)ical reasons (cp. e.g. machines and so on) for the decline of the so called developed population, the white population (and their “branches”). Cultural reasons lead - via economical reasons - to techn(olog)ical reasons, and the last ones make the decline complete by mechanical replacing. Machines are the modern “crown of creation”.
…kind of makes you wonder why that would be, doesn’t it. 
:-"
the difference between ‘what is human’ and ‘what is machine’ is narrowing, it is, as if the dualistic way is being replaced by seeing products of production as part of, the producer.
An effective way to reduce and transform cognitive into effective similarity, ultimately identity. The coming of the cyborg would/might, prevent the selfish robot ‘Sal’, from taking over.
It’s not though is it.
It is happening in science fiction, but there is basically no resemblance at all.
Even people with prosthetic limbs do not use them in ways that a machine would, and try as we might machines have been signally unable to mimic humans, with anything you might call a significant way.
Blacks are no more fertile than whites. It has more to do with wealth than colour.
And, btw. The graphs you are posting are projections, not reality.
But it's bound to. As machines become more efficiently attuned to the functions of the body they are augmenting, the more efficient way such 'adhesion' is achieved, the man,machine difference will become the more unnoticeable. Early artificial hearts were not as
efficient as newer ones. There is no total symbiosis between man and machine, as of yet, but the advance in technology, makes this a necessary part of development.
It has always been noted that the science fictions usually ended up in realities. It is as if science fiction was always more, then a total arbitrary assumption of development courses, they usually had basic , most probable course predictive capacity,so it would seem.
Reality works more often than not on self fulfilling prophecies , which are in essence the identification of projections, with current social expectations.
You can augment a human as much as you like, that does not make him a machine.
And “bound to” is not the same as “is narrowing”.
Sci-fi does not end up in reality. There is such a thing as the laws of physics that tends to get in the way.
I’ve read a lot of very good sci-fi in my time, and the list of stuff that is not, can not, and never will happen is quite an exhaustive one.
On the matter of the horror of the population crisis…
This is worth a good look.
gapminder.org/videos/dont-pa … opulation/
And whist you are there -check this out about the myths of the “third world”.
Prophesies are not self fulfilling when they are based on falsehoods.
But they are, if based on truths.
You have absolutely no idea. A greater nonsense I’ve never read - except the nonsense of Cezarboy.
Go to Africa and you - even you ( 
) - will experience that the black human beings have about seven times more children than the white human beings.
I’ve been to Africa. It it not relevant that they are black, but that they are poor.
Your sources do not establish that blacks “have about seven timesy more children” (sic); and the source of your graphs is rather Micky Mouse.
You do not know what “fertility rate” means.
Poor people have more children because they have more children die; because they have no prospect of a pension, health care, or other things that rich people, like us take for granted.
Having more children is the way people insure for the future, so that they do not die alone, and uncared for.
Please take the time to educate yourself and follow these links from people who know what the fuck they are talking about.
On the matter of the horror of the population crisis…
This is worth a good look.
gapminder.org/videos/dont-pa … opulation/
And whist you are there -check this out about the myths of the “third world”.