this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
34 points (90.5% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have the feeling speaking of percentage paints an incorrect picture. 5% yearly growth doesn't sound much, but this might require a very high rate of children per person.
Let's say we have 80 men and women, i.e. population of 160 evenly distributed between 1 and 80 years. Everyone dies at 80, every woman gets 3 children at 28. This means next year we loose 2, gain 3, i.e. have a growth rate of 1/160~0.6%. In 28 years, we have 1.5 women giving birth to 4.5 pops, i.e. 2.5/188~1.3%. Were it 4 children per woman, it would be 1.2% in the first years, 6/216~2.1%
You can roughly approximate the doubling time for a given percentage by dividing 70 cycles (years in case of annual growth) by the percentage. So 1% annual growth doubles the population every 70 years. 2% every 35 years. So pick whatever percentage you think is a realistic growth rate.