“Actually, its not an exponential increase--.”
How many times have we heard that from the “she’ll be right” brigade - whether it is Curmudgeon(Mark Lawson) or Fred Pearce, who have - strangely enough - made claims to some scientific training, especially in physics.
The world population grew by (best guesstimate?) about 83 million over the last year. As it is growing at an exponential rate of 1.2 per cent (approx), the number of that increase will be more next year - by about 84 million if the exponential rate remains the same. If the rate decreases to 1.1, 1.0, or 0.5 it will still be more than 83 million.
That exponential rate does fluctuate. It has been decreasing slightly over the past decade, but exponential it is.
If early-death rates in the less-developed countries can be minimized, and their present birth rates maintained (an unlikely combination due to the savagery of environmental constraints) - eventually the exponential rate of growth for the world will rise above the present 1.2 per cent, and we will (as Susan Greenfield fantasises) head for the stars and another planet to wreck.
Geoff of Perth

Curmudgeon I believe we’ve arrived at that point where there’s nothing left to say. Only choosing and doing (or not doing) exist anymore. The 800 pound gorilla (population) has been fully identified, acknowledged, and weighed. The pill has been swallowed. Reverse gear has been long since stripped.

Yes there may be a leveling off by mid century, however given the projections out of the UN for most African nations; some growth in population is inevitable going forward.

Energy (cheap) is the key to any meaningful future for us all.

Finite resources are just that, finite; Malthus will inevitably be proven right.

We are the world’s yeast people, the Petri-dish is almost full, the sugar is being eaten at an exponential rate, extinction beckons, tell that to the gorilla.

I feel there is a complacency setting in, boy who cried wolf style, that because Malthus et al have been wrong thus far that it will always remain so.
While a near doubling in wheat prices in 2008 had a marginal effect on production it wasn't staggering.
Govts around the world have reduced spending on agriculture research and development, reduced govt held stockpiles of foodstuffs and have been infringing on farming for the benefit of the environment - returning water to rivers and swamps, setting aside land for conservation and even buying farm land for national parks.
A push for plantation forestry, for wood or future carbon credits, residential and mining development continue to reduce available arable farmland.
Throw in some fishery depletion around the world and I'm a little concerned that another couple of billion mouths in the next few decades will stretch available resources. And I just can't see where the big improvement in yields that needs to
arrive is going to come from.

I don't think there is any room for complacency here. We are indeed beginning to hit limits, be it in oil, land or sinks (such as the ability of the atmosphere to absorb our wastes). There's no more time left for cheap point scoring. We have to start working together to achieve some kind of humane ecological sustainability. We not only must stabilise population but we must reduce it as well. We have to distribute resources better so we lift two billion out of poverty and supply their basic needs. Otherwise, there will be resource wars and they are not going to be pretty. In the end, it comes down to a balance between human numbers and the resources required to sustain them,leaving room for other species to not only survive but thrive and evolve.