3 ms·
Ok, but you realize this requires indefinite exponential growth, right?
by entropi 4y ago
Ok, but you realize this requires indefinite exponential growth, right?
- moonchrome 4y agoWhy ? You're not living forever - and nobody is arguing for high fertility rates. Having 2-3 kids per generation sounds perfectly sustainable. 0 or 1 does not.
- entropi 4y agoSo, imagine x couples, each of whom has 3 kids in their lifetimes. In 80 years, there are now 3x/2 couples. In 160, there are 9x/4. There are now 11 billion people. Every 150 or so years, having 3 kids roughly doubles the population. (A better model would be a birth/death process with a #kids distribution with a mean 3 and death age with a mean 80, but not necessary to make my point, I think.) This is exponantial growth.
- moonchrome 4y agoNot everyone survives or has children - which is why I said 2-3 - it has to be above 2 for replacement, it's not a new concept - lookup replacement fertility rate
- maxerickson 4y agoAbove replacement is exponential growth.
- moonchrome 4y agoBut 2 is below replacement rate
- tablespoon 4y ago> Ok, but you realize this requires indefinite exponential growth, right? No, it probably just means population declines need be very slow and graceful (e.g. very close to steady-state) in order to not create big labor shortages simultaneous with large retiree populations.