4 ms·
This allows no consideration of cultural evolution and is only true within a simple regime without consideration of environment interactions. Not representative
by svnt 3y ago
This allows no consideration of cultural evolution and is only true within a simple regime without consideration of environment interactions. Not representative of human life.
- smitty1e 3y agoI'm not clear what "cultural evolution" means and what actual innovation is possible at the XXXY/family level in the stack. Quite to the contrary, tinkering about at that level seems to trigger societal apoptosis, per the demographics.
- ein0p 3y agoThis is quite literally mathematically irrefutable, no matter how many levels of obfuscation one piles on. A society with a fertility ratio of 3 will eventually supplant one with fertility ratio of 1, it's only a matter of time. Much like climate change, however, this takes generations upon generations, so people like to pretend it's not the case, and shift the burden to their grand-grand-children. But mathematics does not care about one's beliefs - it exists irrespective of them. A societal group with sub-replacement fertility is dying out by definition. You can easily put together a spreadsheet, put in the death and birth rates and model this hundreds of years into the future. In fact you should probably consider doing so - it's rather eye opening.
- svnt 3y agoI’m well aware of what simple geometric growth does. In reality (i.e: not a spreadsheet) it always collapses as well.