4 ms·
Scan down the page to see the graph. It's an "s-curve" growth trend you'd expect in any species, as studied in ecology[1]. The expected peak was also put in t
by pmayrgundter 4y ago
Scan down the page to see the graph. It's an "s-curve" growth trend you'd expect in any species, as studied in ecology[1]. The expected peak was also put in the early 2020s by the Club of Rome studies in the 1970s[2]. Now we get to the fun part of seeing whether we level out at this population or go into collapse.
[1]https://www.britannica.com/science/population-ecology/Logistic-population-growth https://www.britannica.com/science/population-ecology/Logist...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
It also happens to be the normalization function used in neural networks to squash the summed inputs from a feed-forward layer. Interesting to think of the connection there.
- snowwrestler 4y agoA declining human population is not necessarily “collapse.” There are a broad range of societies possible between flat population growth and collapse.
- pmayrgundter 4y agoYes, definitely.
- nitwit005 4y agoA generic animal model isn't going to work. Much of the increase in food production isn't going directly to feeding humans. It's going to livestock, making ethanol for fuel, etc.
- pmayrgundter 4y agoI agree those are factors, but it's not clear they require a new model. From a complexity analysis, the exponential terms will dominate over fixed coefficients, which is what i take your factors to be. In other words, how much livestock, ethanol, etc. do we need? That's mainly dependent on # of people, not living standard. Ofc it's more complex, but again, not clear the usual ecological model won't work and indeed it appears to be.