3 ms·

Of course, "current annualized population growth" is a hilariously bad assumption to make for the next 9,000 years. I would expect population controls long befo

Of course, "current annualized population growth" is a hilariously bad assumption to make for the next 9,000 years. I would expect population controls long before having our "second home" prepared that would limit the rate of our population growth to the speed we can realistically expand. I also don't think humanity will last this long, but as an academic problem it's fun to think about.

perl4ever 8y ago
It's not like humans are the only thing that grows exponentially for a limited period of time. If the yeast in a loaf of bread continued growing, it too would fill the universe very quickly. The saying is "trends that can't continue, won't".
antt 8y ago
>Of course, "current annualized population growth" is a hilariously bad assumption to make for the next 9,000 years. I would expect population controls long before having our "second home" prepared that would limit the rate of our population growth to the speed we can realistically expand. Funny I would have expected that to happen when we started consuming more than the primary production of the planet: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/08/09/opinion/heres-how-many-earths-we-need-meet-our-populations-demand https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/08/09/opinion/heres-ho... We didn't.
- twodave 8y ago
  This is not a planet-scale phenomenon, though. Any student of geography would know that as nations become more mature their birth rates stabilize to more or less match the death rate. It is the less-developed countries that would suffer first in a world where our planet can no longer support our population, in which case I would expect that either they would go to war with each other over whatever resources can be taken from each other (and also reducing their populations in the process) or else face starvation (again, reducing population). Either way there's a large difference between starvation and saturation. The human race is not endangered by the fact that we'll soon saturate our planet, and those that do starve as a result would simply join a long line of people who have already met the same fate.

perl4ever 8y ago

It's not like humans are the only thing that grows exponentially for a limited period of time. If the yeast in a loaf of bread continued growing, it too would fill the universe very quickly. The saying is "trends that can't continue, won't".

antt 8y ago

>Of course, "current annualized population growth" is a hilariously bad assumption to make for the next 9,000 years. I would expect population controls long before having our "second home" prepared that would limit the rate of our population growth to the speed we can realistically expand. Funny I would have expected that to happen when we started consuming more than the primary production of the planet: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/08/09/opinion/heres-how-many-earths-we-need-meet-our-populations-demand https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/08/09/opinion/heres-ho... We didn't.

twodave 8y ago
This is not a planet-scale phenomenon, though. Any student of geography would know that as nations become more mature their birth rates stabilize to more or less match the death rate. It is the less-developed countries that would suffer first in a world where our planet can no longer support our population, in which case I would expect that either they would go to war with each other over whatever resources can be taken from each other (and also reducing their populations in the process) or else face starvation (again, reducing population). Either way there's a large difference between starvation and saturation. The human race is not endangered by the fact that we'll soon saturate our planet, and those that do starve as a result would simply join a long line of people who have already met the same fate.