3 ms·

Population remains limited by resources. How could it not be? We've been adept over the years at finding new resources or extending old ones (the expansion of r

Population remains limited by resources. How could it not be? We've been adept over the years at finding new resources or extending old ones (the expansion of ranching and farming in the Americas in the 19th century, which greatly increased the global food supply, or the invention of artificial fertilizer, for instance), but it is a bit of hubris to say that this is a solved problem for all time.

mikeash 9y ago
Population is not only limited by resources. There are many places where humans reproduce at a rate well below what resources can support.
rz2k 9y ago
It is a ceiling, but there are so many signals prior to hitting that ceiling that the simplification of the Malthusian growth model does not seem to have any utility. Take for example US population density west of the Mississippi. No one needs to explicitly die of thirst. If water is the limiting factor, the cost of water is invisibly incorporated into nearly every cost people experience. If there were limitless water, the influence of other constraints would simply rearrange.
- danbruc 9y ago
  After reading the comments here it probably boils down on what you focus. If you see the entire work pointing out the unsustainability of exponential population growth that will come to an halt either by positive or preventive checks, then you will probably not call him wrong. If you focus on his view that people will probably not be able to get the fertility rate down to sustainable levels and that a Malthusian catastrophe is therefore probably inevitable, then you will most likely call him wrong. But as I said before, I didn't read much of his work and therefore I might have a misconception about what points he actually stressed the most.
Animats 9y ago
Population remains limited by resources. No, it's not, and that's what's so surprising. As nations become wealthier, the birth rate goes down, not up. And it goes down by a lot; more than 50%. All the way down below replacement rate. The US passed "peak baby" in 2007. Outside of Africa, all the major world regions are past "peak baby".[1] Population seems likely to level off around 2050. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > it goes down by a lot; more than 50%. All the way down below replacement rate. Some quick systems-level analysis shows that this state of affairs cannot possibly be stable. Societies reproducing at below replacement rate are quickly replaced by societies reproducing above replacement rate. What will happen then? Counting on societies to hold their birth rate down that far is fundamentally at odds with the theory of evolution. It's not a good basis for predictions of the future.
  - Animats 9y ago
    Societies reproducing at below replacement rate are quickly replaced by societies reproducing above replacement rate. What will happen then? By then, the robots will be ready to take over.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    > Counting on societies to hold their birth rate down that far is fundamentally at odds with the theory of evolution. Why?
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      Because anything reproducing at below replacement rate goes extinct. If you e.g. look around at any given point, and take a sample -- by any method -- of living things that come to your attention, none of those things will have gone extinct. It's the same reason there are no societies which abstain entirely from giving birth. There have been a few, over the course of history, but they disappear for the incredibly obvious reason. At a steady state, such societies don't exist because they can't exist.
njarboe 9y ago
Exponential growth must always come to an end, but if your biggest resource is people than more people can overcome other resource limitations by invention and culture.

mikeash 9y ago

Population is not only limited by resources. There are many places where humans reproduce at a rate well below what resources can support.

rz2k 9y ago

It is a ceiling, but there are so many signals prior to hitting that ceiling that the simplification of the Malthusian growth model does not seem to have any utility. Take for example US population density west of the Mississippi. No one needs to explicitly die of thirst. If water is the limiting factor, the cost of water is invisibly incorporated into nearly every cost people experience. If there were limitless water, the influence of other constraints would simply rearrange.

danbruc 9y ago
After reading the comments here it probably boils down on what you focus. If you see the entire work pointing out the unsustainability of exponential population growth that will come to an halt either by positive or preventive checks, then you will probably not call him wrong. If you focus on his view that people will probably not be able to get the fertility rate down to sustainable levels and that a Malthusian catastrophe is therefore probably inevitable, then you will most likely call him wrong. But as I said before, I didn't read much of his work and therefore I might have a misconception about what points he actually stressed the most.

Animats 9y ago

Population remains limited by resources. No, it's not, and that's what's so surprising. As nations become wealthier, the birth rate goes down, not up. And it goes down by a lot; more than 50%. All the way down below replacement rate. The US passed "peak baby" in 2007. Outside of Africa, all the major world regions are past "peak baby".[1] Population seems likely to level off around 2050. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

thaumasiotes 9y ago
> it goes down by a lot; more than 50%. All the way down below replacement rate. Some quick systems-level analysis shows that this state of affairs cannot possibly be stable. Societies reproducing at below replacement rate are quickly replaced by societies reproducing above replacement rate. What will happen then? Counting on societies to hold their birth rate down that far is fundamentally at odds with the theory of evolution. It's not a good basis for predictions of the future.
- Animats 9y ago
  Societies reproducing at below replacement rate are quickly replaced by societies reproducing above replacement rate. What will happen then? By then, the robots will be ready to take over.
- dsacco 9y ago
  > Counting on societies to hold their birth rate down that far is fundamentally at odds with the theory of evolution. Why?
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    Because anything reproducing at below replacement rate goes extinct. If you e.g. look around at any given point, and take a sample -- by any method -- of living things that come to your attention, none of those things will have gone extinct. It's the same reason there are no societies which abstain entirely from giving birth. There have been a few, over the course of history, but they disappear for the incredibly obvious reason. At a steady state, such societies don't exist because they can't exist.

njarboe 9y ago

Exponential growth must always come to an end, but if your biggest resource is people than more people can overcome other resource limitations by invention and culture.