4 ms·

For now. Over time, low fertility families will die, their genetic and cultural material will disappear, and the remaining human population will be dominated by

For now. Over time, low fertility families will die, their genetic and cultural material will disappear, and the remaining human population will be dominated by high fertility families. There are extremely strong feedback mechanisms that play out pretty quick. Survivors survive!

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think this attitude is a little bit simplistic. It doesn't address what that time frame would be or what happens in the interim. When you say pretty quick is that 5 years or 500 years? While I agree there are some strong feedback mechanisms that lead to population growth, stating that alone ignores the fact that there are even stronger forcing mechanisms in the present pushing population down. The outcome will depend on how those extremely strong feedback mechanisms on both sides interact moving forward. The modern world has yet to see a population where growth rates have bounced back, and some countries like Japan have been declining for more than 50 years.
MadSudaca 4y ago
Maybe in the new generation the same % of people will decide to not have kids and populations in developed countries will continue shrinking geometrically maintaining the present trend. This line of reasoning is very interesting to ponder though. The black plague in Europe made survivors materially richer as they were able to take possession of what was left behind from the deceased. As there's less and less people to compete for stuff, the existing younger populations will be richer, thus giving them an incentive to focus on leisure and reproduction. Then there would be a cycle were the sharp decline in population, plants the seeds for the next big rise.
ssnistfajen 4y ago
Currently high fertility families are concentrated on the two extreme ends of the wealth spectrum, the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor. That's not a great sign for human society's already dreadful wealth inequality.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I think this attitude is a little bit simplistic. It doesn't address what that time frame would be or what happens in the interim. When you say pretty quick is that 5 years or 500 years? While I agree there are some strong feedback mechanisms that lead to population growth, stating that alone ignores the fact that there are even stronger forcing mechanisms in the present pushing population down. The outcome will depend on how those extremely strong feedback mechanisms on both sides interact moving forward. The modern world has yet to see a population where growth rates have bounced back, and some countries like Japan have been declining for more than 50 years.

MadSudaca 4y ago

Maybe in the new generation the same % of people will decide to not have kids and populations in developed countries will continue shrinking geometrically maintaining the present trend. This line of reasoning is very interesting to ponder though. The black plague in Europe made survivors materially richer as they were able to take possession of what was left behind from the deceased. As there's less and less people to compete for stuff, the existing younger populations will be richer, thus giving them an incentive to focus on leisure and reproduction. Then there would be a cycle were the sharp decline in population, plants the seeds for the next big rise.

ssnistfajen 4y ago

Currently high fertility families are concentrated on the two extreme ends of the wealth spectrum, the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor. That's not a great sign for human society's already dreadful wealth inequality.