6 ms·

It's correct in the long long term. Population rates have stabilized because of birth control (in the first world anyway.) But in a few generations, people that

It's correct in the long long term. Population rates have stabilized because of birth control (in the first world anyway.) But in a few generations, people that are allergic to birth control, or genetically want large families or whatever, will dominate the population and growth will continue. There are some religious groups that calculate if they can get each of their members to have 8 children, they will become the majority of the population in like 2 generations. Fortunately even the best groups only manage like 3 or 4 per couple on average. But that only pushes it out a few more generations. And the groups that are the best at keeping their members from leaving, and the members that are the most loyal, will naturally be selected for.

dogruck 9y ago
Are you assuming that the collective brain trust of that growing population will fail to innovate ways to feed themselves?
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Exponential growth is unsustainable. After a few thousand years there won't be enough matter in our solar system. In any case technological progress has slowed way down in the past century. It would be foolish to bet on it saving us.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    You also seem to assume that societies continue to grow at an exponential rate while they simultaneously innovate. And I do not know what your talking about regarding tech progress. Are you kidding?
    - toasterlovin 9y ago
      If you zoom out far enough, all life grows at an exponential rate until it reaches the carrying capacity of its environment. Perturbations in the curve exist only to the extent that you are zoomed way in or the species you are looking at is struggling to avoid extinction.
      - dogruck 9y ago
        Yeah so easy forget that in the scale of Earth's maturation, Humans have just recently arrived.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        That depends an awful lot on how you define "carrying capacity". For example, I'd define carrying capacity as to include consumer preferences in how much they want to have babies. And if you include consumer preferences, well that changes the equation a whole lot. It means that you aren't necessarily going to get in a position where the stopping point is literally people starving to death. All you have to do is have the environment cause 2 people to only want to have 2 babies. And there are a whole lot of reasons as to why 2 people might only want to have 2 babies, other than being forced to under the threat of literal starvation.
        Houshalter 9y ago
        >All you have to do is have the environment cause 2 people to only want to have 2 babies. Those 2 people will be quickly replaced by the couple that wants to have 3 babies. Unless you pass and strongly enforce laws limiting reproduction, which our culture seems unwilling to do, you will get overpopulation. Nature has a lot of population control mechanisms other than starvation. Like disease and predators. But humans have mostly eliminated those.
        toasterlovin 9y ago
        IMO, a better lens by which to examine human preferences is to take the position that humans are poorly evolved for modern life and that what we are witnessing right now with regards to plummeting birth rates is selection pressure which will force the human race to evolve immunity to modern life. As best as I can tell, the version of the human race that will result probably looks a lot like the fundamentalist religious sects that have high birth rates (Amish, Haredi, Mennonites, Hutterites, etc.). And the very poor.
    - Houshalter 9y ago
      I don't know what makes people think technological progress isn't slowing down. By any metric you choose to look at it is. GDP growth, life expectancy, etc. A modern person would be basically familiar with the household and lifestyle of 1940. A few differences, but most of the technology that we use today was already in place by then. Cars, electricity, washing machines, indoor plumbing, etc. A person from 1940 going back 77 years would be entering a different world. The only real exception is computers, information processing technology. One exception doesn't disprove a trend. And even those have begun to slow down now that we are approaching the physical and economic limits. I strongly recommend The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War which pounds this point home with example after example of just how much the world changed during the second industrial revolution.
tomjakubowski 9y ago
> There are some religious groups that calculate if they can get each of their members to have 8 children, they will become the majority of the population in like 2 generations. Who are these groups? Do you refer to the "Quiverfull" movement?
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  In the developed world, highly religious groups are the only groups who have been able to sustain fertility rates above, say, 2.5 children per woman. The ones I am aware of are the Amish, Haredi Jews, Mennonites, and the Hutterites. All of those are around 6 children per woman. The demographics of these groups have real consequences. The Amish have witnessed a 50-fold increase in population in the last 90 years (from 5,000 to 250,000). Haredi comprised only 5% of the Jewish population in Israel as recently as 1990, but they're now at 10% of the total Jewish population and a whopping 29% of the the Jewish population under 20 years of age. --- I wrote something about this, if you're interested: http://www.thinkfundamental.org/the-people-who-believe-in-evolution-are-losing-at-it/ http://www.thinkfundamental.org/the-people-who-believe-in-ev...
baddox 9y ago
If they can get each member to have 8 children that remain members into adulthood.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  They don't. But the ones that do stay, and the churches that are the most effective at keeping them, will be heavily selected for.
  - baddox 9y ago
    Sure, the selection process is clear. The trouble is that heritability is weak.

dogruck 9y ago

Are you assuming that the collective brain trust of that growing population will fail to innovate ways to feed themselves?

Houshalter 9y ago
Exponential growth is unsustainable. After a few thousand years there won't be enough matter in our solar system. In any case technological progress has slowed way down in the past century. It would be foolish to bet on it saving us.
- dogruck 9y ago
  You also seem to assume that societies continue to grow at an exponential rate while they simultaneously innovate. And I do not know what your talking about regarding tech progress. Are you kidding?
  - toasterlovin 9y ago
    If you zoom out far enough, all life grows at an exponential rate until it reaches the carrying capacity of its environment. Perturbations in the curve exist only to the extent that you are zoomed way in or the species you are looking at is struggling to avoid extinction.
    - dogruck 9y ago
      Yeah so easy forget that in the scale of Earth's maturation, Humans have just recently arrived.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      That depends an awful lot on how you define "carrying capacity". For example, I'd define carrying capacity as to include consumer preferences in how much they want to have babies. And if you include consumer preferences, well that changes the equation a whole lot. It means that you aren't necessarily going to get in a position where the stopping point is literally people starving to death. All you have to do is have the environment cause 2 people to only want to have 2 babies. And there are a whole lot of reasons as to why 2 people might only want to have 2 babies, other than being forced to under the threat of literal starvation.
      - Houshalter 9y ago
        >All you have to do is have the environment cause 2 people to only want to have 2 babies. Those 2 people will be quickly replaced by the couple that wants to have 3 babies. Unless you pass and strongly enforce laws limiting reproduction, which our culture seems unwilling to do, you will get overpopulation. Nature has a lot of population control mechanisms other than starvation. Like disease and predators. But humans have mostly eliminated those.
      - toasterlovin 9y ago
        IMO, a better lens by which to examine human preferences is to take the position that humans are poorly evolved for modern life and that what we are witnessing right now with regards to plummeting birth rates is selection pressure which will force the human race to evolve immunity to modern life. As best as I can tell, the version of the human race that will result probably looks a lot like the fundamentalist religious sects that have high birth rates (Amish, Haredi, Mennonites, Hutterites, etc.). And the very poor.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    I don't know what makes people think technological progress isn't slowing down. By any metric you choose to look at it is. GDP growth, life expectancy, etc. A modern person would be basically familiar with the household and lifestyle of 1940. A few differences, but most of the technology that we use today was already in place by then. Cars, electricity, washing machines, indoor plumbing, etc. A person from 1940 going back 77 years would be entering a different world. The only real exception is computers, information processing technology. One exception doesn't disprove a trend. And even those have begun to slow down now that we are approaching the physical and economic limits. I strongly recommend The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War which pounds this point home with example after example of just how much the world changed during the second industrial revolution.

tomjakubowski 9y ago

> There are some religious groups that calculate if they can get each of their members to have 8 children, they will become the majority of the population in like 2 generations. Who are these groups? Do you refer to the "Quiverfull" movement?

toasterlovin 9y ago
In the developed world, highly religious groups are the only groups who have been able to sustain fertility rates above, say, 2.5 children per woman. The ones I am aware of are the Amish, Haredi Jews, Mennonites, and the Hutterites. All of those are around 6 children per woman. The demographics of these groups have real consequences. The Amish have witnessed a 50-fold increase in population in the last 90 years (from 5,000 to 250,000). Haredi comprised only 5% of the Jewish population in Israel as recently as 1990, but they're now at 10% of the total Jewish population and a whopping 29% of the the Jewish population under 20 years of age. --- I wrote something about this, if you're interested: http://www.thinkfundamental.org/the-people-who-believe-in-evolution-are-losing-at-it/ http://www.thinkfundamental.org/the-people-who-believe-in-ev...

baddox 9y ago

If they can get each member to have 8 children that remain members into adulthood.

Houshalter 9y ago
They don't. But the ones that do stay, and the churches that are the most effective at keeping them, will be heavily selected for.
- baddox 9y ago
  Sure, the selection process is clear. The trouble is that heritability is weak.