Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The scientific revolution in demography

  • Published:
Population and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since 1960 a debate has taken place between demographers and natural scientists over projections of world population into the future and the methods appropriate for making projections. Underlying this debate is a disagreement over the factors which influence human population growth. To the usual factors of fertility and mortality the natural scientists emphasize the human population's ability to communicate and thereby to enlarge available resources. Also at issue are different philosophies concerning the manipulation of data. The debate between demographers and natural scientists bears many of the features of a scientific revolution as described by Thomas Kuhn. The new theory also meets the criterion of scientific growth contained in the correspondence principle. The theories used by demographers and natural scientists have political implications, since the demographers assume stability whereas the natural scientists observe instability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Coale, A.J. (1961). Population Density and Growth.Science 133, pp. 1931–1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deevey, E.S., Jr. (1987). Of Doomsday and the Lower Mississippi.Science 238, p. 1215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorn, H.F. (1962). An International Dilemma.Science 135, pp. 283–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P. (1968).The Population Bomb. Ballantine.

  • Fowler, R.G. (1982). Social Enhancement of World Population Growth.Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 62:84–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haub, C. (1987 July 24). Standing Room Only.The Washington Post.

  • Howland, W.E. (1961). Doomsday.Science 133, pp. 939–940.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski, W. (1977).Correspondence Principle and Growth of Science. Reidel Publishing Co.

  • Kuhn, T.S. (1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second Edition. University of Chicago Press.

  • Lambert, F.L., Fowler, R.G., et.al. (1988). Will the Optimists Please Stand Up?Population and Environment 10,2, pp. 122–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E.M. (1981). World Population: Toward the Next Century. Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J.S., Bond, V.P., & Cronkite, E.P. (1961). Doomsday.Science 133, pp. 936–939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrin, J. (1975). Is "Doomsday" on Target?Science 189, 4197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinbrot, M. (1961). Doomsday.Science 133, pp. 940–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trucco, E. (1965). Mathematical Models for Cellular Systems: The Von Foerster Equation. Parts I and II.Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. Vol. 27, pp. 285–304 and 449–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A.O. and Bogue, D.J. (1978). Declining World Fertility: Trends, Causes, Implications. University of Chicago report.

  • Umpleby, S.A. (1987). World Population: Still Ahead of Schedule.Science 237, pp. 1555–1556.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1951). Population Bulletin No. 1—December 1951. New York.

  • United Nations. (1966). World Population Prospects as Assessed in 1963. Population Studies No. 41, New York.

  • United Nations. (1982). World Population Prospects as Assessed in 1973. New York.

  • United Nations. (1985). World Population Prospects as Assessed in 1982. Population Studies, No. 86, New York.

  • United Nations. (1986). World Population Prospects as Assessed in 1984. Population Studies, No. 98, New York.

  • United Nations. (1989). World Population Prospects as Assessed in 1988. New York.

  • Von Foerster, H. (1959). Some Remarks on Changing Populations.The Kinetics of Cellular Proliferation, F. Stohlman, Jr., (ed.), New York, Grune and Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Foerster, H., Mora, P.M., & Amiot, L.W. (1960). Doomsday: Friday 13 November, A.D. 2026.Science 132, pp. 1291–1295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Foerster, H. (1961).Mitotic Indices of Dividing and Differentiating Cells. BCL Report NIH/C-4044#2,3, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, 111 pages.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Foerster, H., Mora, P.M., & Amiot, L.W. (1961, March). Doomsday.Science 133, pp. 943–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Foerster, H., Mora, P.M., & Amiot, L.W. (1961, June). Population Density and Growth.Science 133, pp. 1932–1937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Foerster, H., Mora, P.M., & Amiot, L.W. (1962). "Projections" versus "Forecasts" in Human Population Studies.Science 136, pp. 173–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Foerster, H. (1966). The Numbers of Man, Past and Future. Biological Computer Laboratory Report 13.0, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattenberg, B. (1981, May 18). What "Population Explosion"?The Washington Post.

  • Witten, M. (1983). On Stochasticity in the Von Foerster Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equation System.Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equations. Pergamon, pp. 447–457.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Science, George Washington University, 20052, Washington, DC, USA

    Stuart A. Umpleby

Authors
  1. Stuart A. Umpleby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Umpleby, S.A. The scientific revolution in demography. Popul Environ 11, 159–174 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01254115

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01254115

Keywords

Search

Navigation