4 ms·
No, my statement is very simple and mathematically correct. In order for the global population to hit peak child, every subgroup must also hit peak child. You c
by lacker 9y ago
No, my statement is very simple and mathematically correct. In order for the global population to hit peak child, every subgroup must also hit peak child. You cannot have a finite set contain an infinite set. You may think that every subgroup will hit peak child and thus the global population will hit peak child - that is logically consistent. But you cannot believe that some subgroups will expand indefinitely, but the global population will peak.
- ergothus 9y agoYour assertion seems true only if subgroups can maintain a positive growth rate indefinitely, which is theoretically possible but hardly proven, particularly as history show that subgroups that grow too much splinter, and the splinters do not all maintain the parents growth rate. Most splinters dwindle, so a simple exponential growth does not apply for long. (On a global scale.)