Albert Bartlett's Quote: Worth Contemplation?

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

Albert Bartlett stated this in his lecture on the exponential function.

You can search videos of this lecture on YouTube. It's titled, "The Most IMPORTANT video you'll ever see." It is in eight parts.

What are your thoughts?

Originally posted by mac-11
[b]"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

Albert Bartlett stated this in his lecture on the exponential function.

You can search videos of this lecture on YouTube. It's titled, "The Most IMPORTANT video you'll ever see." It is in eight parts.

What are your thoughts? [/B]

I don't get it.

Something taught in a basic form to middle school students (primary school) is widely misunderstood? Who doesn't know what exponential growth is?

Or is it a commentary on the more complex uses of the exponential function such as quantum physics and mathmatical theorems?

If that's the case then I have an even better case for "addition" as all math is a form of addition. Everything works based on math so addition is the most misunderstand element of reality. I win, right?

If you want to talkabout the exhaustion of the world's natural resources, then you should name that, I think. That's what this thread is about...at least from Albert Bartlett's perspective.

Originally posted by mac-11
[b]"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

Albert Bartlett stated this in his lecture on the exponential function.

You can search videos of this lecture on YouTube. It's titled, "The Most IMPORTANT video you'll ever see." It is in eight parts.

What are your thoughts? [/B]

Shouldn't this go in the philosophy forum?

I don't see how this quote is so "huge", since it's been said before. Albert Einstein was way ahead of Bartlett on this philosophy, but less specific on what it revolved. Truth be told, even Socrates had variations of this philosophy.

I could be interpreting the quote wrong, though. As it appears, being able to interpret "exponential function" require some mathematic knowledge, and I lack that.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]Shouldn't this go in the philosophy forum?

I don't see how this quote is so "huge", since it's been said before. Albert Einstein was way ahead of Bartlett on this philosophy, but less specific on what it revolved. Truth be told, even Socrates had variations of this philosophy.

I could be interpreting the quote wrong, though. As it appears, being able to interpret "exponential function" require some mathematic knowledge, and I lack that. [/B]

Where did you get the impression that it was huge? I don't think the quote has been said before and, if it has, I don't think it was verbatim to Barlett's quote.

You created a thread about it. I figured you thought it a big thing.

I'm not saying it was a replica to his, I'm saying it hasn't necessarily not been said before. I don't fully comprehend what he mean by it, since "exponential function" I have limited understanding for what it actually is; But it appear as if of relevance to philosophies shared with both Albert Einstein and Socrates.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]You created a thread about it. I figured you thought it a big thing.

I'm not saying it was a replica to his, I'm saying it hasn't necessarily not been said before. I don't fully comprehend what he mean by it, since "exponential function" I have limited understanding for what it actually is; But it appear as if of relevance to philosophies shared with both Albert Einstein and Socrates. [/B]

No, you know what it is: it's just something that grows, exponentially, as X increases.

It's is quite simply y^x.

However, the context of the thread is about human growth and consuming the finite amount of natural resources.

If every couple mated for life, had just one boy and one girl and, in turn, every person died at 100, the population would stablize. We'd then have to figure out a way to keep everything we did as "renewable" and low impact on the environment. Not gonna happen as we are too selifsh.

Even with that explained to me, I don't make much sense out of his quote. If how you describe it, is his intentions with the quote, then the greatest shortcoming of the human race is greed, or tendencies of selfish behavior.

I don't think it's an inability for understanding. I think it's more an issue of not wanting to understand, because it'd require us to live a life in which we sacrifice comfort for the well-being of the rest of the world.

I'm pretty sure real mathematicians are into logarithmic functions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you know what it is: it's just something that grows, exponentially, as X increases.

It's is quite simply y^x.

However, the context of the thread is about human growth and consuming the finite amount of natural resources.

If every couple mated for life, had just one boy and one girl and, in turn, every person died at 100, the population would stablize. We'd then have to figure out a way to keep everything we did as "renewable" and low impact on the environment. Not gonna happen as we are too selifsh.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why 100?

The age isn't important, as long as they die.

is human consumption even exponential? I thought it plateaued out after wealth hit a certain point?

any exponential growth in consumption would be a fantastic measure of the reduction in poverty.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why 100?

Smart answer:

Telomeres and genetic degradation.

My real answer:

Originally posted by Bardock42
The age isn't important, as long as they die [at a specific age to realize stabilization in numbers].

The point Bartlett is trying to make with his quote on the exponetial function is best illustrated by the famous example of the lily in the pond. If a lily splits into 2 lilies every day, and it takes 30 days for the lilies to cover the pond, at what point is the pond half covered with lilies? Day 29. This is the power of expontial (or compound) growth. His point is most of the trends that are of concern, pop growth, resource use, growth in atmospheric CO2, declne in fishstocks and forest cover etc have a compound function. The world is of course finite. These issues grow bigger and bigger faster and faster, meaning we have less and less time to address them the longer we delay, and the more we delay the harder and more costly they are to tackle. We tend to think we have decades to deal wth our current problems - but because of the compund function, each day that passes the time available to deal with them also shrinks expontially. The compound function also has another important implication. If we doubled global agricultral output, it would only by us about 1-2 more decades before we would need to increase it again due to the expontail growth in demand for food. It is unlikely we will be able to get anywhere near doubling global food production - we are about to hit a wall.