I think in writing that's generally referred to as an "internal monologue" as you are the only speaking in your own mind. I haven't been able to find a singular word that means the same thing but I hope that helped!

I read a whole bunch of awesome things in Nerdfighteria.

I finished and turned in a 15 page paper that has been stressing me out for weeks! It's not perfect, but it's done!

I ate some really good lasagna.

okay so John creates all these amazing strong female charcters and I wanted to vote to see everyone's favorite

How come A = P ( 1 + r/n )^nt isn't applicable?

If you knew what the rate of change is, then wouldn't that be exactly the same as working out compound interest or discounts?

Is a "birth rate" of 1.4, the total number of births per 1,000 of a population in a year, or a replacement rate or what? What about the death rate?

If you knew what the rate of change is, then wouldn't that be exactly the same as working out compound interest or discounts?

Is a "birth rate" of 1.4, the total number of births per 1,000 of a population in a year, or a replacement rate or what? What about the death rate?

I am very disappointed in these responses, I asked for non ideological facts so I can put my mind around what is going on and has been going on to some populations around the world and demographics with in the USA as well for 70 years now.What? How on Earth were these responses ideological opinions? We provided numbers, and explained the reasoning behind the rough math we submitted. There's no reason to insult the people that have taken the time to attempt to answer your (rather open-ended) question.

The neanderthal reference, refers to a branch of Humanity that is now extinct so close to humans it could inter breed, this is not like Bananas or Chimpanzees that clearly have nor could ever do the same. Frankly I find this idea that Only 1 group of Humans that has ever existed on earth not worth protecting, as some kind of insane ideological reverse racism.It seems to me you're the one that's interested in bringing ideology into the mix. If you're solely interested in the future trends of the human population, then mentioning Neanderthals are irrelevant.

Anyone with the Mathematical IQ that can help me? I am thinking about 4-5 generations (years do not matter fruit fly examples work just fine for me here)Nice of you to infer that the people who have responded so far do not have a "mathematical IQ."

So are you looking for a model accurate to humans, or just any population growth model? Because humans don't act how the population of other animals do. Most models assume that the population's lifespan and deathrate remains fairly constant, however that is not the case with humans. If you assume they are constant with humans, your model will not be a very good predictor of future growth.

Ok maybe we need to to try easier Math? Lets say the populations had a birth rate of 1.1 that every generation this population lost 1/2 its population, its close to the 1.4 but easier to do the math on this . How many times can we 1/2 this population or split this hair before its no longer an independent group at allYou've really already gotten an answer for this, which is what QCDsoup provided. They picked US as a sample population because you didn't specify which population you wanted to have an answer for, and for these types of questions you really do need to plug in numbers (like initial population.)

I'm guessing the equation they used was something like:

P = Po*r^t

where P is the final population (1), Po is the initial (320 million), r is the growth rate (1.4/2) and t is time (generations). Solving for t, they got 54 generations, or about 4345 years.

My response was to say that I disagreed with the growth rate that was used. Rather than 1.4/2 which would produce a population decay, I was saying that the population growth rate was more accurately 13/8, which would produce exponential growth. (Actually, I'd like to amend my previous assumption. Instead of 13/8, it would be more accurate to use (1000+13)/(1000-8) since this is the population growth/decrease per 1000 individuals. Still, your rate of growth would be positive, at 1.02.)

Assuming that the population halves for every 1.4 growth is accurate with other populations, but not with humans for the reasons I stipulated above. In fact, you can google the growth rate of any population you wish: the world growth rate is 1.13% (meaning you'd plug 1.0113 (101.13/100) into the above equation, and would, in fact, give you a growth rather than a decay.)

Japan has a Birth rate of 1.4 with very little immigration as their people believe in persevering there own culture and heritage, crazy as that might sound to some of you. Now with a 1.4 birth rate losing basically 1/2 of the population every generation how many generations will it take for the original Japaneses heritage to no longer exist? A formula to help me figure this out can be extrapolated into the other groups as well for my needs.Now that you have the formula, you can plug in numbers of your own to answer your question. And, making the assumptions that you do (using a growth rate of 1.4/2) you'll see an exponential decay. However, I'd again caution you against using that number. Googling the Japanese growth rate (although it fluctuates) their current growth rate is, in fact, positive, at 1.01%, meaning the population will be growing, not decaying. Obviously that will change in coming years, but it can be very difficult to predict.

This model of exponential growth/decay largely assumes that the growth rate is constant (which is why it is a rough, convenient equation to use.) Keeping in mind that population growth may fluctuate in the future, your model is likely to change. In fact, the future of humanity's population is something that no one really has concrete answers for, so you're unlikely to get a concrete, realistic number at the end of the day. But the exponential growth equation has been an accurate model of past human populations, so it's the best anyone can recommend for you to use at this point.