The low 0.1 percentage factors the unfavorable resource factor in, not to mention the 60000 head start which I gave you
NO! You
CANNOT treat true population growth over some extended period this way, by picking some "appropriate" average growth rate - it is simply
WRONG. Look at the rate now, at the rate 80 years ago, 200 years ago, 1000 years ago. Do these look like figures you can simply average and hope to retain some semblance of reality?
You have demonstrated nothing except a willful ignorance of the subject matter.