In pseudo economics speak, if you want me to pay attention to such graphs, oh The Economist, please factor in the externalities correctly and make a list of these factors.If the availability of copper, water, fuel, antiseptics, or political instabilities caused by a larger population would make this projection false, please put in the corrections and let the reader know that you did it.For instance, war and plague would seem to be likely at these high population densities but are probably not included in the projection.
@Eric -- not sure where you are going, but the graph just shows PEOPLE. The results of 9.5 billion people shall be shown in other graphs :)
Eric - The same could have been (and, in fact, was) said at many points to the left on that curve. Didn't stop it from climbing as shown. What specifically about the number 7 billion makes it different from the other numbers along the way? Yeah, it's a big number; but 6 billion seemed like a big number, and so did 4 billion, and 1 billion... and at each of those points, you could find people predicting doom, and other saying everything was fine. Both, of course, were wrong.
Read this first!Make sure you copy your comment before submitting because sometimes the system will malfunction and you will lose your comment.Spam will be deleted. Comments on older posts must be approved (do not submit twice).If you're having problems posting, email your comment to me