Friday, November 14, 2014

Exponential Curve 1


Exponential Curve 1

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 1


For the love of the human race.

Friday, November 14, 2014

Our Thesis


We are greatly indebted to Dr. Albert Allen Bartlett (1923-2013), former emeritus professor of physics at the University of Colorado, Boulder.[1]  These are Dr. Bartlett’s ideas, we are merely reporting them.  We have performed a lengthy analysis of Dr. Bartlett’s “arithmetic” elsewhere.[2]

One cannot investigate either energy policy or energy theory without a thorough understanding of the exponential curve.[3]

Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 1


The basic exponential equation is, y = a * bt:  Where, a, is the initial value of y or y0, the intercept where y crosses the y axis, the initial value when the horizontal, or x value is zero; b, is the exponential constant; and, t, is the time, distance, or other factor plotted on the horizontal, or x axis.  If b is expressed as 1 plus some rate of increase, r, b = 1 + r, then we can apply the basic exponential equation to the study of growth, where growth is r.

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the Exponential Function.”

In exploring this line of thought Dr. Bartlett first emphasizes the incredible size reached by the exponential curve in a very short distance or time.  A simple graph of the exponential curve reveals that it approaches infinity without hardly trying.  Since all exponential curves approach infinity; in real life, growth requires infinite energy.  The reader should realize that this is impossible, so it is impossible to sustain growth for any length of time.

Continuous growth is impossible for the same reason that continuous acceleration of vehicles is impossible.  Either a limit is reached where the engine no longer has enough power to cause acceleration, or the vehicle reaches a velocity where it is no longer stable, runs out of control, and crashes.

Dr. Bartlett dramatizes this great size by reminding us of the infamous chess board bet.  A chess board is divided into 8 x 8, or 64 squares.  A single insignificant object (usually a grain of rice or a penny) is placed on the first square.  That quantity is doubled with each succeeding square.  What does that add up to?  It cannot be a very large number can it?  I’ll be that it’s not more than a few thousand; certainly not more than one million.  So we take the bet which requires that we provide the insignificant objects, and loose them all if it exceeds our maximum estimate of one million.  You can do the math, but the last square has 9.223 E+18 items plus change.  That’s 9.223 E+12 million items; or 9.223 E+9 billion items; or 9.223 E+6 trillion items.  The number of items on all the squares is twice that size.  In terms of dollars, that’s enough money to bankrupt the United States; maybe enough to bankrupt all the nations on earth.

Exponential curves result in seriously big numbers, in very few steps.

Doubling time, or ordinary steady growth.

Since we doubled the quantity on each square, the question naturally arises, is there a relationship between growth and time?  If we have a percentage of growth in mind can we calculate the length of time it will take to double?  Yes, it’s easy.

Since, y (t) = a * bt, we want to find out how long it will take for   to reach 2 * a.  Applying a little simple algebra we get 2 = bt.  Then with the help of logarithms we find that ln (2) = t * ln (b).  So, t (doubling time) ≡ ln (2) / ln (b).  The ln (2) is 0.693, which is real close to 0.7.  The ln (b) = ln (1+r), which is real close to r.  So all we need to do to get the approximate time is divide 0.7 by r, or if r is in percent we divide 70 by r.  This handy dandy rule of thumb is called the Rule of Seventy.

So, if we put a dollar in the bank at 1% interest per year, it will be worth two dollars in seventy years (except for the fact that inflation and taxes will steal all of it.)  The population of the United States is about 325 million people and growing at a little more than 1%.  In seventy years the population of the United States will be roughly 650 million people unless something changes.  If you need to know how accurate this Rule of Seventy is, just cook up a spreadsheet table and compare the actual ln (2) / ln (1+r), using the decimal for r here, with 0.7 / r (the decimal) or 70 / r (%).

Size Matters

The size is likewise easy to calculate, not in the head, but using a scientific pocket calculator, or a computer spread sheet.

The number of grains on any square is y = 1 * 2(n-1).  The number of grains on the sixty-fourth square is y = 1 * 263.

The sum of grains on the board at any square is y = 1 * 2n - 1.  The number of grains on the board at the sixty-fourth square is y = 1 * 264 - 1.  The number of grains on any square is 1 more than the total amount on all the previous squares combined.

When a percentage of growth is being considered the doubling time = 70 / r.  The number of times it doubles = r.  The amount of the object being doubled in 70 years, approximately one human lifetime is 2r.  If growth is at 5%, the object will double in amount every 14 years, and be 32 times the original amount after 70 years.

The Standard Social Model

The exponential growth model is, was, and continues to be the dominant social model chosen by our leadership.  Last year’s federal budget discussions[4] were arguing the merits of a roughly 2.5% growth plan and a 4.5% growth plan.  Neither side is willing to discuss a zero or negative growth plan.

We should have paid closer attention to President Carter’s speech on energy in 1977.  That was the last honest presidential appraisal of the energy crisis: we have been living in a state of denial ever since.  Carter said “in each of these decades (the 1950’s and 1960’s) more oil was consumed than in all of mankind’s previous history.”  That is a profound observation.

Conclusion


Steady growth is in fact an aggressive, uncontrollable, vicious monstrosity that eventually destroys the culture in which it is allowed to exist.  Growth must be restrained.  If we are to take this “arithmetic” seriously, as we must; we must convince; nay, we must compel, we must demand that our leaders develop steady negative growth plans.  A 5% growth plan will double our consumption in fourteen years.  A 5% reduction plan will halve our consumption in fourteen years.  The growth model must be put to death, before it puts us to death.  Nobody can live with the 64th square.

The only growths that are tolerable to civilization are the growth of conservation and the growth of food.  If we work at these we may, someday, once again have clean water, plenty of oxygen, and rich soil.




[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett
[2] http://swantec-ep.blogspot.com/2014/11/energy-policy-analysis-1-ra.html
[3] http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html
[4] Fall 2013
[5] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish.  No rights are reserved.  They are designed and intended for your free participation.  They were freely received, and are freely given.  No other permission is required for their use.

No comments:

Post a Comment