Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Plastic-Wear-3576 t1_jdyyetq wrote

Reply to comment by patman_007 in Estimates suggest population growth rate to peak at 8.6 billion by madrid987

The confusion is that the headline and opening sentence of the article itself are different.

The headline says what you're saying, the highest rate of population growth will be at 8.6 billion people, then that rate will taper off, but their will still be growth.

The first sentence in the article says that at current growth rates, the highest POPULATION, not growth rate, will be at 8.6 billion people, where the population will then begin to decline.

Simplified:

Headline -> Population will grow past 8.6 billion. Article -> Population will not grow past 8.6 billion.

11

SrpskaZemlja t1_jdz9nko wrote

I'm disappointed both with journalists and with redditors' confidently wrong calculus knowledge this morning.

5

patman_007 t1_jdzxbdy wrote

I'm amazed at some people's confidence in things they are wrong about.

1

phunkydroid t1_je075v9 wrote

I'm amazed you keep commenting without reading past the headline.

3

patman_007 t1_je0ntl3 wrote

I'm not commenting on what the article was stating, just pointing out that growth rate and population total are two separate things.

1

phunkydroid t1_je0rrq0 wrote

>I'm not commenting on what the article was stating

Then why did you say:

>No, they're saying the rate at which the population will grow will peak at 8.6 billion people LMAO.

​

> just pointing out that growth rate and population total are two separate things.

Which is what the first person in this thread said when you got snarky with them. The headline says rate, but the article clearly talks about the overall population, despite the word rate being incorrectly used.

The rate peaked already. It's in decline now. The article is about the population peaking in 2050 and then declining for the second half of the century to 7 billion by 2100. Total, not the rate.

1