If we all would still be living the tribal life... — Benkei

If wishes were horses...

the explosion of human population growth happened as a by-product of the industrial revolution. If we were still fishing with sailing boats and hemp ropes and nets, the population would not have been growing at the rate it has, and we would not be as numerous as we are, nor as totally fucked as we are, and there would still be lots of fish in the sea. But Steel hawsers and plastic nets are a thing, and I have to carefully sort the seaweed I put on my garden to decontaminate it.

I'm not advocating a massive cull of humanity, I'm predicting one.

Climate models have long predicted that a warming world would lead to higher humidity, because warmer air evaporates more water from Earth’s surface and can hold more moisture. The consequences of more humid heat include greater stress on the human body, increased odds of more extreme rainfall, warmer nights and higher cooling demand.
With only a few days left in meteorological summer, defined as June to August, this summer is on track to be the most humid in the United States in 85 years of recordkeeping based on observations of dew point — a measure of humidity — compiled by Hudson Valley meteorologist Ben Noll. It’s also likely to end up being the most humid summer globally, Alaska-based climate scientist Brian Brettschneider said in an email to The Washington Post.
If both trends hold, then five of the most humid summers in both the United States and worldwide will have occurred since 1998

—WaPo

the explosion of human population growth happened as a by-product of the industrial revolution — unenlightened

I thought it was the invention of fertilizer. The global population begins its exponential rise around then.

I'm not sure what you mean, as you give no date or reference.

If you mean the invention of artificial fertiliser, then the 1900s seems very late date. Natural fertilisers were in use from Roman times and before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fertilizer

But agricultural industrialisation began alongside the industrialisation of production with horse drawn machines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_(agriculturist)

Ok, not fertilizer. I was thinking of Jethro Tull, so you're right, it was about industrialization:

"Jethro Tull's invention of the seed drill contributed to the population increase during the British Agricultural Revolution:
Seed drill
Tull's horse-drawn seed drill allowed farmers to plant seeds in straight rows, which increased the amount of seeds that germinated. The seeds were planted below the ground, out of reach of wind and birds.
Agricultural Revolution
The seed drill allowed farmers to cultivate larger areas and produce more food, which led to a population increase.
Modern agriculture
Tull's methods were adopted by many landowners and helped to establish the basis for modern agriculture." -- google AI

, , human population has roughly been growing exponentially since the neolithic (as far as we can tell), but might peak in our time.
Transitions by hunting/gathering ... tool use/making ... farming helped increase growth when the population was much lower.
It was with the industrialization (starting, let's just say, around 1800) that anthropogenic effects went global. (and we started infecting the Moon and Mars as well :wink:)
I don't think any of these transitions are bad in and of themselves, it's more that people generally don't care about sustainability or responsibilities.

I don't think any of these transitions are bad in and of themselves, it's more that people generally don't care about sustainability or responsibilities. — jorndoe

I don't know, millions of Americans faithfully put their garbage into recycling bins, not realizing that there are limited options for doing anything with all that material. China used to take a large portion of American recyclables, but not anymore. In other words, caring doesn't necessarily equal beneficial action.

human population has roughly been growing exponentially since the neolithic (as far as we can tell), but might peak in our time. — jorndoe

Sure it has. Exponential growth is what happens to populations until a constraint or limit halts it. As long as there were new worlds to conquer, new environments to exploit, new technologies to use, new resources of energy, new more intensive farming methods, human exponential growth has continued - give or take a few hiccups - plagues, famines and so on. But the human population on Earth has exceeded the ability of the environment to sustain it: 'might' is not the term; human population will start to crash this century, as cartoon idiot like, we destroy the environment we depend on.

But the human population on Earth has exceeded the ability of the environment to sustain it: 'might' is not the term; human population will start to crash this century, as cartoon idiot like, we destroy the environment we depend on. — unenlightened

World population likely to shrink after mid-century

Improvements in access to modern contraception and the education of girls and women are generating widespread, sustained declines in fertility, and world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100--about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study published in The Lancet.

[ Also people with a higher standard of living tend to have less children. Or is it that having less children gives you a higher standard of living? ]

By 2100, projected fertility rates in 183 of 195 countries will not be high enough to maintain current populations without liberal immigration policies

By century's end 23 countries will see populations shrink by more than 50%, including Japan, Thailand, Italy, and Spain.

Continued global population growth through the century is no longer the most likely trajectory for the world's population.

This looks far too rosy to me.

You ever plot something you think is linear and found out it ain't?

The problem with such predictions is a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate which might not be about the linear relationship being described (and often isn't)

The new analysis predicts that the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100--about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates.

The latest (2019) UN Population Division report estimates that world population is likely to reach 10.88 billion by 2100.

Population forecasts from UN Population Division use just past time trends as the determinant of future trajectories for fertility and mortality. So population forecasts from the UN Population Division are more linear than the new analysis.

In the new study researchers developed a statistical modelling strategy that use past and forecasted trends in drivers of fertility (education and met need for modern contraceptives), mortality (sociodemographic variables and more than 70 risk factors for disease) and migration (sociodemographic variables, deaths due to conflict and natural disasters, and the difference between birth and death rates). Also, their model incorporates uncertainty about migration and accounts for women delaying childbirth as they become more educated.

The problem with such predictions is a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate which might not be about the linear relationship being described (and often isn't) — Moliere

The new analysis attempts to handle the situation where a change in one thing leads to a change in rate which is connected to another change of rate.

Population forecasts from UN Population Division don't attempt to handle these situations.