5 ms·
If this is true, then how do they explain population stabilization in, e.g., Europe, and other developed areas? Why shouldn't what worked for Europe work for t
by Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
If this is true, then how do they explain population stabilization in, e.g., Europe, and other developed areas?
Why shouldn't what worked for Europe work for the rest of the world?
- barry-cotter 7y agoPopulation didn’t stabilise, anywhere, ever. Nothing “worked” for Europe. Most of Eastern Europe is losing population to emigration. If you look at breeding populations rather than geographies you see some populations growing and others shrinking. You don’t see steady states. The population behaviour of the British and that of descendants of those resident in Britain in 1900 are not the same thing. Focusing on nations obscures that fact.
- Al-Khwarizmi 7y agoSorry, I didn't make the best choice of words. With "stabilized" I really meant "stopped growing". And indeed, in practice this has resulted into shrinking, not a steady state.
- toasterlovin 7y agoFertility rates declining for several generations is not stabilization. It’s a bump in the road while humanity evolves resistance to whatever it is about modernity that causes us to have fewer children.
- ForHackernews 7y agoI don't think humans are every going to evolve past being a K-selected species.
- toasterlovin 7y agoThey can evolve past having below replacement fertility, though. And then they can evolve to something like 3-4 children per woman while remaining K selected. With 3-4 children per woman, the human population will quickly expand to fill out our ecological niche, just as we have done in the last several hundred years.
- username90 7y agoHuman females can easily have over 10 children each, so we are R-selected compared to a lot of species like Bonobos. Just a minor behavioral adjustment and we'll growing by a factor of 5 per generation, that will never happen to Bonobos who can only get pregnant every 5 years.
- barrkel 7y agoIf the majority of people are only now limiting their fertility due to reduced infant mortality, availability of contraception, and both parents working making childcare more expensive, and increased cost of education and housing (itself often a proxy for education), then genetic or cultural traits that promote fertility even in the face of these trends will only now come to the fore.
- ema 7y agoWell for one thing Europe relies on immigrants to keep it's population from declining and if the whole world becomes like Europe in this regard we're gonna quickly run out of immigrants. ETA: I see from your other comment that you meant "stopped growing" so my comment doesn't really apply.
- xamuel 7y agoIf an antibiotic doesn't wipe out its target, then its target's numbers will be devastated in the short-term, but in the long-term, its target will evolve immunity to the antibiotic and ultimately recover. If you think about it, contraceptives are extremely similar to an antibiotic whose target is human beings. We're still living in the short-term when the antibiotic seems to be effective.
- malvosenior 7y agoThis is a very interesting and I think accurate take. It also has strong implications for the support or lack there of for abortion in the future.