Explaining the Mechanism of Growth in the Past Two Million Years Vol. I

Economic growth and the growth of human population in the past 2,000,000 years are extensively examined. Data are found to be in a clear contradiction of the currently accepted explanations of the mechanism of growth, which revolve around two fundamental but incorrect doctrines: (1) the doctrine of stagnation (inappropriately labelled also as Malthusian stagnation, because Malthus never claimed that his positive checks would cause a long-lasting and wide-spread stagnation) and (2) the doctrine of explosion described also as a takeoff, sprint, spike or by other similar attributes. These doctrines and other related postulates are contradicted even by precisely the same data, which are used in the economic research and by the research results published in a prestigious scientific journal as early as in 1960. The generally accepted explanations are not based on a rigorous analysis of data but on impressions created by the easily misleading features of hyperbolic distributions. Two leading theories: the Demographic Transitions Theory (or Model) and the Unified Growth Theory are fundamentally incorrect. Descriptions of the past socio-economic conditions are not questioned. They might have been harsh, difficult and primitive but they are not reflected in the growth trajectories. They did not create stagnation in the economic growth and in the growth of population. Likewise, impacts of the Industrial Revolution on many aspects of life are not questioned. It is only demonstrated that this event had absolutely no impact on shaping growth trajectories. A general law of growth is formulated and used to explain the mechanism of growth of human population and of economic growth. The growth was predominantly hyperbolic. Such a growth is described by exceptionally simple mathematical function and the explanation of the mechanism of growth turns out to be also simple.Comment: 85 pages, 44,161 words. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1708.08673, arXiv:1601.07291, arXiv:1601.04686, arXiv:1510.00992, arXiv:1603.01685, arXiv:1509.0661

Extinction of megafauna: How could the research get so wrong?

Published evidence for the human-mediated extinction of megafauna is examined and is found to be unsubstantiated. It is shown that the claimed evidence is not based on data describing the growth of human population but on the fabricated data. However, even these fabricated data, which were claimed to support the human-induced extinction of megafauna, contradict this claim. The belief in the human-induced extinction of megafauna appears to be so strong that even contradicting evidence based on the fabricated data is interpreted as the evidence supporting this belief.Comment: 8 pages, 4 figures, 1 table, 3859 word

Demographic Transition Theory Contradicted Repeatedly by Data

In the absence of convincing evidence, data for Sweden and Mauritius are used in academic publications to illustrate the Demographic Transition Theory. These data are closely examined and found to be in clear contradiction of this theory. Demographic Transition Theory is also contradicted by the best available data for England. Other examples of contradicting evidence are also discussed.Comment: 21 pages, 6 figures, 8796 word

Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Economic Growth in Asia

Historical economic growth in Asia (excluding Japan) is analysed. It is shown that Unified Growth Theory is contradicted by the data, which were used (but not analysed) during the formulation of this theory. Unified Growth Theory does not explain the mechanism of economic growth. It explains the mechanism of Malthusian stagnation, which did not exist and it explains the mechanism of the transition from stagnation to growth that did not happen. The data show that the economic growth in Asia was never stagnant but hyperbolic. The alleged dramatic takeoff around 1900 or around any other time did not happen. However, the theory contains also a dangerous and strongly-misleading concept that after a long epoch of stagnation we have now entered the epoch of sustained economic growth, the concept creating the sense of security. The opposite is true. After the epoch of sustained and secure economic growth we have now entered the epoch of a fast-increasing and insecure economic growth.Comment: 9 pages, 2 figures, 3848 word

Computer simulations of the extinction of megafauna

Computer simulations carried out by Alroy (2001) are examined. Contrary to the claim of their Author, there is no convincing evidence that the extinction of megafauna was caused by humans. Intentionally or unintentionally, attempt was made to force the human-induced extinction of megafauna by assuming an absurdly fast growth of the hypothetical human population in North America. The assumed growth rate was around two-orders of magnitude larger than normally expected. It is well known that the past growth of human population was slow, but in these simulations, the growth of the hypothetical human population was unreasonably fast. However, even under this unreasonable assumption about the growth of human population, computer simulations do not support the postulate of human-assisted extinction of megafauna because there is no clear correlation between the growth of the hypothetical human population and the distributions describing the decline in the population of megafauna.Comment: 9 pages, 4 figure, 4411 words. This version contains new information about the growth of human populatio

Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the GDP/cap Data

Mathematical properties of the historical GDP/cap distributions are discussed and explained. These distributions are frequently incorrectly interpreted and the Unified Growth Theory is an outstanding example of such common misconceptions. It is shown here that the fundamental postulates of this theory are contradicted by the data used in its formulation. The postulated three regimes of growth did not exist and there was no takeoff at any time. It is demonstrated that features interpreted as three regimes of growth represent just mathematical properties of a single, monotonically-increasing distribution, indicating that a single mechanism should be used to explain the historical economic growth. It is shown that using different socio-economic conditions for different perceived parts of the historical GDP/cap data is irrelevant and scientifically unjustified. The GDP/cap growth was indeed increasing slowly over a long time and fast over a short time but these features represent a single, uniform and uninterrupted growth process, which should be interpreted as whole using a single mechanism of growth.Comment: 16 pages, 8 figures, 5945 word

Hyperbolic Growth of the World Population in the Past 12,000 Years

Data describing the growth of the world population in the past 12,000 years are analysed. It is shown that, if unchecked, population does not increase exponentially but hyperbolically. This analysis reveals three approximately-determined episodes of hyperbolic growth: 10,000-500 BC, AD 500-1200 and AD 1400-1950, representing a total of about 89% of the past 12,000 years. It also reveals three demographic transitions: 500 BC-AD 500, AD 1200-1400 and AD 1950-present, representing the remaining 11% of the past 12,000 years. The first two transitions were between sustained hyperbolic trajectories. The current transition is to an unknown trajectory. There was never any form of dramatic transition from stagnation to growth, described often as a takeoff, because there was no stagnation in the growth of the world population. Correct understanding of the historical growth of human population is essential in the correct interpretation of the historical growth of income per capita.Comment: 12 pages, 5 figures, 1 table, 4995 word

Explaining the Origin of the Anthropocene and Predicting Its Future

Growth of the world population and the world economic growth were hyperbolic in the past 2,000,000 years. Recently, from around 1950, they started to be diverted to slower trajectories but they are still close to the historical hyperbolic trajectories. Regional growth of population and regional economic growth were also hyperbolic. Hyperbolic growth can be slow over a long time and fast over a short time but it is still the same, monotonically increasing, growth. It is incorrect to interpret slow growth as stagnation and fast growth as explosion, each controlled by different mechanisms of growth. Hyperbolic growth has to be interpreted as a whole and the same mechanism has to be applied to the slow and to the fast growth. The Anthropocene is characterised by the rapid growth of population, rapid economic growth and rapid consumption of natural resources. The origin of the Anthropocene can be explained as the natural consequence of hyperbolic growth. However, while its dramatic impacts became apparent only recently its starting point cannot be mathematically determined. Its beginning could be traced to the dawn of the existence of hominines. Its future is insecure because it is dictated by many critical trends shaping the future or our planet, but notably because the size of the world population is predicted to continue to increase at least until the end of the current century to a possibly unsustainable level and because the world economic growth follows now an unsustainable trajectory.Comment: 14 figures, 1 table, 11,148 word

Changing the Direction of the Economic and Demographic Research

A simple but useful method of reciprocal values is introduced, explained and illustrated. This method simplifies the analysis of hyperbolic distributions, which are causing serious problems in the demographic and economic research. It allows for a unique identification of hyperbolic distributions and for unravelling components of more complicated trajectories. This method is illustrated by a few examples. They show that fundamental postulates of the demographic and economic research are contradicted by data, even by precisely the same data, which are used in this research. The generally accepted postulates are based on the incorrect understanding of hyperbolic distributions, which characterise the historical growth of population and the historical economic growth. In particular, data used, but never analysed, during the formulation of the Unified Growth Theory show that this theory is based on fundamentally incorrect premises and thus is fundamentally defective. Application of this simple method of analysis points to new directions in the demographic and economic research. It suggests simpler interpretations of the mechanism of growth. The concept or the evidence of the past primitive and difficult living conditions, which might be perhaps described as some kind of stagnation, is not questioned or disputed. It is only demonstrated that trajectories of the past economic growth and of the growth of population were not reflecting any form of stagnation and thus that they were not shaped by these primitive and difficult living conditions. The concept or evidence of an explosion in technology, medicine, education and in the improved living conditions is not questioned or disputed. It is only demonstrated that this possible explosion is not reflected in the trajectories of the economic growth and of the growth of population.Comment: 20 pages,10 figures, 11729 word

Mathematical analysis of historical income per capita distributions

Data describing historical growth of income per capita [Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP/cap)] for the world economic growth and for the growth in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, former USSR, Africa and Latin America are analysed. They follow closely the linearly-modulated hyperbolic distributions represented by the ratios of hyperbolic distributions obtained by fitting the GDP and population data. Results of this analysis demonstrate that income per capita was increasing monotonically. There was no stagnation and there were no transitions from stagnation to growth. The usually postulated dramatic escapes from the Malthusian trap never happened because there was no trap. Unified Growth Theory is fundamentally incorrect because its central postulates are contradicted repeatedly by data, which were used but never analysed during the formulation of this theory. The large body of readily-available data opens new avenues for the economic and demographic research. They show that certain fundamental postulates revolving around the concept of Malthusian stagnation need to be replaced by the evidence-based interpretations. Within the range of analysable data, which for the growth of population extends down to 10,000 BC, growth of human population and economic growth were hyperbolic. There was no Malthusian stagnation and there were no transitions to distinctly faster trajectories. Industrial Revolution had no impact on changing growth trajectories.Comment: 20 pages, 8 figures, 1 table, 8331 word