3 ms·

Imagine that this was another species (species H), and we look at the development as biologists: Phase 1) Species H is a very successful species, and the popul

Imagine that this was another species (species H), and we look at the development as biologists: Phase 1) Species H is a very successful species, and the population is growing exponentially. Phase 2) The rapid growth is introducing harmful elements into the environment: - Poisons that harm fertility directly (Birth Control) - Social changes that negatively affect natural reproductive behaviours (including, but limited to porn and increasing autonomy for females) - Various poisons that reduce general health (such as sugar). Note that these changes to the enviornment do not include any of the main causes that normally cause a limitation to a population size, such as: - Lack of resources, primarily food - Predation by other species - Competition by more successful species. Unless the population size started to approach an evolutionary bottleneck size (a few thousand individuals left), a biologist would expect species H to eventually overcome these changes, and resume expeonential growth in phase 3.

WA 7y ago
Fails short, because for all species but humans, reproduction/offspring is kind of the main goal in life. Humans have a lot of other interests, and having children comes with huge tradeoffs in "lifestyle". Also, they can actively avoid pregnancy. Which other species does that? Edit: What would phase 3 eventually be, if you overcame all obstacles, but children still take away from other activities? I think this reason alone is enough that most people will be happy with roughly 2 children. Enough to fulfill the desire for children, leaving room for all other things in life.
pjc50 7y ago
Natural populations are indeed either exponentially growing or death-limited. The difference is that we've seen what "death-limited" means for humans, and we have the consciousness to be horrified by it. Infant and maternal death on the one hand, wars and massacres on the other, disease as an omnipresent risk. In the old R/K model, we've started at K-selection and moved even further in that direction.
DocTomoe 7y ago
> a biologist would expect species H to eventually overcome these changes, and resume expeonential growth in phase 3. Actually, what we have seen in experiments like these is complete societal collapse followed by population collapse. See John B. Calhoun's "Mouse Utopia" experiments. It might well be that we are the "beautiful ones"

WA 7y ago

Fails short, because for all species but humans, reproduction/offspring is kind of the main goal in life. Humans have a lot of other interests, and having children comes with huge tradeoffs in "lifestyle". Also, they can actively avoid pregnancy. Which other species does that? Edit: What would phase 3 eventually be, if you overcame all obstacles, but children still take away from other activities? I think this reason alone is enough that most people will be happy with roughly 2 children. Enough to fulfill the desire for children, leaving room for all other things in life.

pjc50 7y ago

Natural populations are indeed either exponentially growing or death-limited. The difference is that we've seen what "death-limited" means for humans, and we have the consciousness to be horrified by it. Infant and maternal death on the one hand, wars and massacres on the other, disease as an omnipresent risk. In the old R/K model, we've started at K-selection and moved even further in that direction.

DocTomoe 7y ago

> a biologist would expect species H to eventually overcome these changes, and resume expeonential growth in phase 3. Actually, what we have seen in experiments like these is complete societal collapse followed by population collapse. See John B. Calhoun's "Mouse Utopia" experiments. It might well be that we are the "beautiful ones"