Slashdot Mirror

I bet you're not speaking of thisBartlet(t)

Read this lecture, especially section IV

Quick google search for patent applications

Quick google search for world population

Now cut and paste the data for years 1963-2010. I've used the 5th column (total utility patent applications) as this seems like it might be relevant. Clean up the data a bit:

cat patents.txt | awk '{print $5}' | sed s/,// | grep -v '*' | tac > pat.txt

cat population.txt | egrep '(^19|^20|^21)' | sed s/,//g > pop.txt

Now if you load this in octave, you can make a quick graph:

plot(pop(:,1), pat ./ pop(:,2))

As you can see from the graph, the proportion of patent applications from around the world is roughly constant until about 1990, then it suddenly jumps up.

Obviously, this only represents US patents for a rather short time period compared to human existence, it would be interesting to find data to extend back two centuries if possible.

Does anyone know what happened in 1990 in the US to change the patent application rate?

Thanks for your insightful reply. I'll have to read "The Gripping Hand" to see if I agree; I had not known there was a sequel: :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gripping_Hand
"A crucial plot element of the book is the idiom "on the gripping hand", a three-armed variation of the idiom "On one hand X, on the other hand Y." The saying is native to the alien Moties, who have three arms, one of which is stronger but possesses less finesse. The idiom has also gained some use among fans of the book.[1]"

Actually, as an analogy to the blockaded of the Moties, are there intellectual blockades by some aspects of an elite trying to keep regular humans from expanding intellectually or economically? :-) Related:
"Chapter 7: The Enclosure of Science and Technology: Two Case Studies"
http://yupnet.org/boyle/archives/162

Nanotech may have been slow to develop for other reasons (see Amara's Law or Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns), but nanotech-related science is reshaping our economy, and 3D printing of plastic and other materials (like with MakerBot or RepRap) is shaping up to be the next big thing. So, as with Amara's law, it is easy to get the pace of an exponential trend wrong from a linear perspective. Also, there may be specific issues (thermal limitations, statistical issues) on why Drexler's original nanotech stuff may never play out as he outlined (biological cells may be as good as it gets for reliable mechanisms on that nanotech level, even if nanotech structures like blended materials or diamanoid may still be useful). From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara
"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run."

I'd agree that conflicts may well exist in the future over what are essentially issues of identity and aesthetics (or even religious/spiritual issues). I liked your Dyson sphere example. And, to an extent, those issues are with us even now, some people might prefer there was only a billion (or less) people on the Earth, and some others even might want the solar system left the way it is (no more disfiguring footprints on the Moon, etc.). The Negative Population Growth people come to mind, for example, and that NPG meme has grown all too common in the US environmental movement IMHO:
http://www.npg.org/

I'm more in the Jerry Pournelle/Julian Simon "Survival with Style" camp for now myself:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q2/view570.html
"Survival with Style said that Carter and the gloomsters were wrong, we were not headed for a nearly inevitable collapse, we would not have an enormous die-off of humanity, there would not be a billion people dead of starvation, and the US didn't need to join the poor nations: the best thing the US could do for the world would be to get rich. And there were ways to do it. Despair is not only a sin, it's a blunder. Back in those days I was one of the few who went to college campuses to say things like that. I was opposed by the faculty; most of the students wanted to hear that they were not headed for lives of poverty and gloom. But I sure felt alone for a while there."

However, with that said, because I believe were are entering an age of abundance, I think we can "survive with style" while still, for the most part, being respectful of the natural environment (especially regarding habitat loss and pollution) as well as working towards things like a basic income for all of humanity. My very belief in potential abundance suggest

The population grown rate is already slowing down after peaking in the 1960's and is expected to continue to slow down, which is consistent with the parent poster's conjecture that current growth can't be maintained.

http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm

So perhaps you can enlighten us on how Economics proves that what is happening in the real world is wrong?

Gaianist is those who worship Gaia: mother Earth. Since you spout as truth the propaganda of its adherents, you should know more about where the mediated version of it in the Mainstream Media has its origins. You could have Googled it, or Google "Gaia Hypothesis". Also known as "Deep Ecology". Unfortunately, they have hijacked the environmental movement; which started out being about not soiling our own nest, to create a clean and safe environment for people; and turned it into a "four legs good, two legs baad" movement. "Silent Spring" represents that watershed.

Gainaist propaganda, like the DDT scare, kills at least as many people as the corporate kind. If we are to believe its core adherents, it requires a reduction of world population of anywhere from 50%-90%. That's a lot of people that have to die in the name of the religious belief of "sustainability" and "harmony with nature".

DDT losing its effectiveness over time is a non-sequitur in the ban or not ban decision. If it isn't effective, people won't use it. There's ample proof that banning it (sorry, refusing to allow USAID $ to be spent on it, which amounts to the same thing) has led to a massive increase in the incidence of Malaria in poorer countries.

ie the birth rate declines.

Which doesn't reduce the population, it only reduces the rate of population growth.

By improving education, equality, and economic opportunity the population will reduce. The replacement rate or fertility rate to maintain a steady population is more than 2 children per female. However in developed nations where there is equality and educational as well as economic opportunities the birth rate is below 2 births per female. As it is now where the population is growing the fastest, Africa, is also where there is a lack of economic opportunity, education, and equality. By increasing, improving, these 3 factors in Africa the population will decline there. Admittedly it won't happen instantaneously but within a short tyme it will. It may take 20 or 30 years but it can happen. China and India are good examples. Until these 3 factors improved there, China and India had the highest population growth rates. However now that both nations have improved their birth rate has dropped. Some will cite China's One Child per Family policy, but while it may of helped, it does not explain India's drop in birth rate.

I think America is still one of the relatively small number of first world countries with intrinsic population growth.

Without immigration it appears the US population is increasing slowly, in the US I found this on the rate of Fertility: " The U.S. average fertility rate is currently 2.1335 births per woman, the U.S.'s highest fertility rate since 1971. (For comparison, the United Kingdom's fertility rate is 1.7, Canada's is 1.4, and Germany's is 1.3.)" This may lead to an increase in population but if so it's real low. As the US is becoming more religious I wonder how much religion influences this as some of them call their followers to "multiply".

Oh yes? Then I hope you have already sent your regards to your new Chinese and Indian overlords

The hope is that the USA can continue to ramp up its population while sustaining a good rate of growth, such that China and India don't ever really catch up. Check this out.. This is a Census department population forecast for the USA.

Census Population Projections 1998

Notice that it was the high series had the US population at below 300,000,000 in 2006, and we've exceeded that. Thus, assuming the high series continues, the USA population will hit 500+ million by 2050. That's a population doubling time of 75 years. Assuming the same doubling time, we're talking about a billion Americans by 2125...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/just_26_favor_senate_immigration_plan

A quick search on Google provided me with the following links, most support or tend to support the claims I made.

http://www.illegalaliens.us/polls.htm

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44154

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155413,00.html

Latest polls show it is closer to 3/4 than 2/3. In the meantime, I suggest that you broaden your circle of friends.

Now, as for Illegal Immigrants, do you know how much of the prison population are "undocumented aliens"? How many of them are murderer's, and how many victims? Just because you don't like the terminology I use, doesn't mean it isn't factual. The problem is that when one ignores time (3200 in 3 hours vs more over years ..) doesn't make the facts any less factual. Funny thing about statistics is one can make any case one wants with them, if they have the right data.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml

It looks like we might be heading towards a different sort of singularity than was previously envisioned. A world where the US self-destructs (just look at the debt clock), ripped apart by capitalizm mixed with profiteering and greed among the well-connected, and the RotW (Rest of the World).

Some of the economic projections for later this century are downright ugly - with a US with a population of up to half a billion, but a permanently wrecked economy, as we hit the upper limits of what's possible, and the rest of the world catches up, then surpasses the US in terms of GNP. Both China and India will have larger economies by the middle of the century - and less debt.

The first generation or two of immigrants (legal and illegal) tend to have a high birthrate. Then, after they've been corrupted by American culture, the birthrate falls drastically.

An NPG demographic analysis of age distribution, fertility, and mortality data shows that if there had been no immigration to the U.S. since 1990, the population in 2000 would have been 262 million - 19 million less than the 281 million counted. Thus, post-1990 immigrants and their children accounted for 61 percent of population growth during the last decade.

Considering food production, the load that human activities are imposing on the biosphere, global warming, chemicals and pollution, labor and wages, issues of social equity, and the problems of crowding, disease, and misery, NPG believes that a world population size of two to three billion would be optimal.

To quote: Blah, blah, blah. 10 minutes or less of fact checking would have saved you a ton of bull. There are only four states on either coast (well, on the East Coast really) that come close to the population density of Japan (this is in 2000 and I'm pretty positive it holds true today with minor variation). Here, as of 2000, are the population densities of East and West coast states versus Japan:

All figures are people per square mile.

• Japan - 858
• New Jersey - 1134
• Rhode Island - 1003
• Connecticut - 703
• Mass. - 810
  And from here it just goes downhill:
• California - 218
• New York - 402
• Oregon - 36
• Washington - 89
• Florida - 296
• Maryland - 542
• Maine - 41
• Georgia - 141
• Virginia - 179

And so on and so forth. So, basically, the facts support my assertion that population density is still not close enough to Japan's to justify comparison _based on that fact alone_. Even consenting that a large portion of people on both coasts live in large cities the density is still off by a factor or two. I'm all for FTTH being rolled out by municipalities acorss the US. I'd kill (well, ok, maybe not kill but asswhoop) to have faster broadband access in my region but I still think it comes down to "who is going to make the money?"

You can also see some comparisons of population density here. This is a .pdf file.

and population growth in the US is not negative...

http://www.npg.org/facts/uspopfax.htm/

Facts, please? Now, just think. The state education budget is $5 billion in Oregon. In an ideal world, we could take all of that money and give it to teachers. However, in the real world, there is overhead. So, let's assume that 50% of the money goes to administrative overhead. That leaves $2.5 billion for teachers. Assuming I haven't added a zero and an average salary of $60000 (which is high) that would pay for 41,666 teachers. Again, assuming a classroom size of 20 (which in CA is the law for 3rd grade and under if you want certain state funds) that would educate 833,320 children. I don't know ratio school-aged children are in the population, but let's assume 30%. That means we can support a population of 2,499,960 citizens (Oregon has a population of around 3.5 million. That's just with the state money funding education which is FAR less than the county money funding education via property taxes. You say "There isn't enough money in education". I say, "Bullshit!"; In California the average cost per student is around $7000 per year. You mean to tell me that it can't be done for less providing a damn good education? Please...; Just read this if you really want to get pissed off.

The deficit is over $500 Billion AND CLIMBING.

No, the defecit is almost $7 trillion. The budget defecit for 2003 is around $500 billion. I don't disagree that it's way too high. Where do you propose making cuts? I'll start with the federal Department of Education. States can fund their own education (and they do -- the federal money is a drop in the bucket (a little over $50 billion spread across 50 states.)) That saves $53 billion right there. The rest can easily be found in cuts in social programs which is 59% of all federal expenditure (granted Social Security is a huge part of that.) But why is the federal government doing welfare (personal and corporate)? Do you think it can be at all efficient at it. It should be a state/county issue so that monies could be spent more effectively. And those welfare programs should have a sunset date. BTW, the "War on Poverty" that was launched by LBJ, when is that war going to end? There was a 10% poverty rate in the US at that time and guess what, it's about 10% now. So can we declare that war as over and benefit from the "peace dividend" by giving back the monies that would have been spent on that "war" as more tax cuts? Or, hell, pay down the debt with it. I'd prefer the former, but would support that latter. I'd also like a constitutional balanced budget amendment but I don't think it will ever happen...

There is a difference between losing money in the stock market and having those funds looted.

Absolutely. I think all of the bastards that purposely over-valued their companies and hosed investors should live a life with just two pennies to rub together while being Bubba's prison bitch.

C'mon, be honest, you like Bush because you don't understand basic economics.

I don't particularly care for Bush. He's spending way too much money and growing the federal government at way too high a rate for my tastes. But there isn't a viable alternative out there that is going to do better and can win. BTW, I do understand basic economics. I also understand "government economics" where a 3% cut is only 7% growth vs. the 10% growth that was baselined in. I also know what I would do if I were king for a day (as I'm sure you do too.) But the reality of the situation is that congress sees no need to not spend money like it's going out of style (regardless of the party in control, but I do suspect that the current Republican spending binge is in large part to take away all of the Democrat issues -- education, healthcare, etc.)

BTW, you migh

Ohhhhh-kay... so what's your point?

Here's a map of Canada, and its relative densities. Gee, look where all the people are--ain't that where the blackout happened?

And here are two small states--NJ and CT--that flank NYC ("Tri-State Area") and their own densities. Pretty good amount of people eh? Granted the stats are per sq. mile, but it is not too hard to extrapolate.

So please, tell me again how the Northeastern US is so different from France in terms of denisty?

Ohhhhh-kay... so what's your point?

Here's a map of Canada, and its relative densities. Gee, look where all the people are--ain't that where the blackout happened?

And here are two small states--NJ and CT--that flank NYC ("Tri-State Area") and their own densities. Pretty good amount of people eh? Granted the stats are per sq. mile, but it is not too hard to extrapolate.

So please, tell me again how the Northeastern US is so different from France in terms of denisty?

Add to this the fact that the apparent next Prime Minister is one of the most independently wealthy people in Canada. Kinda hard to bribe someone like that.
It is interesting to note that Canada is one of the most over governed countries in the world. We have a population similar to California. (31+ Million Canada 35 Million California) We have 24 Senators, 4 for each province.California has 2.
More political numbers and facts on Canada

how do you measure innovation?

I was wondering that as well. Also, this "study" seems like a correlational one, yet there are no correlation stats (pearson r, or whatever). And everyone knows that correlation does not mean causation.

All the nit picking aside, I'm impressed with this work from a freshman. Much better than anything I did the first couple of times as a freshman :)

One thing to keep in mind is that the US population is the largest of any industrialized nation. More people mean more customers (higher number of cd sales, more inovators (especially industrious immigrants (god this is looking like lisp))). Plus the cd sale data ignores the fact that the cd medium is still fairly new, and a good number of the sales could have come from people upgrading from other formats, etc. I guess you see the problems with correlations.

Hey, genius, check your facts. Andalucia is bigger than the entire state of Massachusetts... and I would hardly call Boston "Higgletypigglety and Ishkabibble". A declaration from an entity that size to only purchase and install open-source software and compatible hardware seems pretty significant to me.

(Check your state population facts here, if you're curious.)