Yes, growth continued. And it's still continuing. But it didn't continue on the pace many people assumed it would.

Many, but not most. I never heard of a
"population explosion" until I was middle-aged. Even then, I wasn't too worried. I had just driven coast to coast with a few north and south zig zags. I saw a lot of open space and figured there was no possibility of filling that up in the next few centuries. The explosion happened, but not on the scale that a few people predicted, and not with the results they worried about. I guess it depends on how you define a population explosion. I think I am saying the same thing you said. (below)

>
> >I avoided using the term exponential growth
> >because that clearly did not happen. But growth
> >did.
>
> Sure it did. But growth at a slower, more maintainable rate. I understand that things are way more crowded now than they were when you were a kid. But the point is they're not as crowded as they *could* have been (or as crowded as many doomsayers predicted they would be) nor is it unmanageably crowded today.
>
> Here's another stat I find interesting. The world population doubled from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion in 1999. It's currently projected to be 9 billion by 2042, an increase of about 50% So it doubled in the 40 years from 1959 to 1999, but in the 43 years from 1999 to 2042, it's expected to only increase by another 50%.(Stats from here: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html) Yes, that's still growth. But growth at a much slower and still declining rate.

When the rate of increase is decreasing, there is still an increase. We have no way of even guessing what will happen between now and 2042. There are too many variables.
Howard