Overpopulation Is Not the Problem

> If you sample on the interval 1990 to the present, crime appears to have gone down. If you sample from 1960 or any longer intervals to the present, per capita crime has certainly increased.

How about instead of SAMPLING, and without performing any sort of "moving average", you just SHOW the homicide rate, and do so over a range wide enough to INCLUDE 1932. Can you do that?

If you do that, I think you will find that you are wrong about this - the homicide rate today is lower than it was in 1932. Because there was a huge peak around the 1930s PRIOR TO the relatively low point in the 1950s. I don't see much point in applying "a reasonable moving average" since the underlying trend is pretty smooth, but if you did, say, a 5-year moving average it would STILL be lower today than in 1932.

> What you said was that population was increasing without constraint.

And that's correct -- any population increase above zero is without constraint. All one need do is calculate the doubling time:

http://arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html

> The fact that the rate of growth is declining does suggest the presence of one or more constraints ...

Yes, or more likely, it's a random fluctuation indicative of nothing in particular. The latter assumption, which may seem overly skeptical, is how a scientist is expected to look at an unexplained change in the rate, based on a precept called the null hypothesis -- a presumption that (in a manner of speaking) it's all random and meaningless.

> ... and it argues against your implication that "mass death" is the only likely way out.

Not really. Remember that nature efficiently picks out those with the highest birthrates and makes them the entire future population. My point is that population growth is naturally unstable, depending only on food sources and a willingness to push other species out of the way.

1.1% per annum may not seem like a very large rate of increase, but 63 years doesn't seem like a very long time to double the world's population either.

Exponential increases of all kinds are rather scary to model. They're scary enough when one looks at compound interest and how that naturally creates a chasm between rich and poor over time, but the "big show" for exponential increases is population, where much more is at stake.

> For what it's worth, I have taken calculus.

Okay, glad to hear it. Given that, I think you will appreciate what I thought when I heard you object that population couldn't be increasing because the rate of increase was decreasing.

> And if you're the guy who wrote AppleWriter: Nice job! I liked that program. I used it in high school.

Yes, that's me. Thanks.

> the link you provide in "support" actually said we CAN feed our present numbers

The hungry aren't fed by unrealized possibilities. All the numbers do is fluctuate, they don't ever indicate that we're feeding the hungry. It's not at all surprising that the numbers fluctuate, we're talking about reality, not a computer model. But one thing doesn't change -- the shocking number of people who are starving at any given time.

When it comes to hunger, there's no point in arguing that that we can feed the hungry, as you put it. There's only whether we did -- everything else is hand-waving.

> In short, your link does not in any way support your argument.

Of course it does. The number of people who are starving is very high. Some years it's higher, some years lower, but it's never "acceptable" and it always supports the claim I made about it -- we aren't feeding the hungry.

The presence of unused stockpiles of food means nothing -- there are any number of reasons why that situation exists, but the bottom line is that the hungry aren't fed. Do you really think some conscientious aid worker goes home after a hard day's work, satisfied that he had fed the hungry in principle?

> Here's a useful tip: most people are not complete idiots.

Think like a scientist. Use the null hypothesis as your guide. Let yourself be pleasantly surprised by what people know, but never assume that people know what they need to know to have any given conversation or deal with any given problem. The consequences of that mistake vary between foolish and dangerous.

> http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

Yes, very familiar with this article -- I use it in my anti-psychology campaign. For some reason, many psychologists think it identifies psychology as a science, when it clearly does the opposite.

> How about instead of SAMPLING, and without performing any sort of "moving average", you just SHOW the homicide rate ...

The answer is simple -- it serves no purpose. If the point is to establish historical trends, and in particular if it's desirable to create a future trend line, the first thing to do is avoid the classic mistake of examining the raw data. (This is true in climate studies also, for the same reasons.)

In this case, a moving average meant to confirm or refute the thesis that crime rates are higher now than in the past, is best conducted with a long interval. Such an interval shows that crime per capita is much, much higher now than it was in the past, along with population (which also fluctuates over time).

The 1930s were a historical anomaly -- the Great Depression (an increased level of social upheaval and desperation), and prohibition coming to an end (which meant that gangsters had to think of a new way to make a living), arriving at once, make it unrepresentative. Any statistician hoping to establish social trends would treat that period as an obstacle to producing a meaningful trend line.

> I don't see much point in applying "a reasonable moving average"

Yes, I got that. And I won't be likely to successfully explain to you why it's needed.

>> But one thing doesn't change -- the shocking number of people who are starving at any given time.

> But that one thing DOES change! It improves!

Learn statistics -- learn how to avoid cherry-picking intervals to prove anything you care to. That is all.