4 ms·

Other than genetic minimum population numbers, there should be civilization minimum population numbers, and I'd suspect modern technology would allow for a few

by singularity2001 3y ago

Other than genetic minimum population numbers, there should be civilization minimum population numbers, and I'd suspect modern technology would allow for a few hundred(?) million people to hold up the same standard of living and progress.

ang_cire 3y ago
Barring an apocalyptic scenario, Earth is never going to see populations dip back below 2 billion, and honestly probably never even below 5. It's not even declining now, it's just [growing YoY at 0.8% instead of 1.2%](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...). That's the "decline".
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Why? Why do you assume that people ever start procreating, when they are below replacement most everywhere? When does it stop? Why do you assume it does?
  - defrost 3y ago
    There's a lot to be learnt from looking at population dynamics of other species; animals and plants elsewhere on the planet, particulaly those on islands and other constrained by resource environs. It's more plausible to assume our population peaks, as predicted, then falls, and then levels out and stabilises | oscillates. It'd be odd for it to peak and then plummet to zero from 10 or 11 billion.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      Perhaps not to zero, maybe it was just an "algae bloom" of humanity. From which it would dwindle to half a billion thinly distibuted around the globe. And that's a medium scenario. If some kind of collapse happens, we may dip into half a million hunter-gatherers. Or half a million hi-tech bunker dwellers. Population dynamics are not very insightful. We see villages which had population for three millenia deserted, with nobody wishing to live in that empty place and grow their cattle or whatnot.
      - defrost 3y ago
        > And that's a medium scenario. In your opinion, sure. For most that's just a fanciful outlier possibility.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        You assume that population will stabilize despite fertility falling univerasally all around the globe (with tiny but highly unpleasant exceptions). The economic issues are only projected to get worse. There are no known mechanisms for fertility to rebound. Yet you assume with certainty that the trend will reverse. Great to be you.
        defrost 3y ago
        > You assume that population will stabilize Correct. This is seen in all manner of real world dynamic systems with constraint pressures. "Stabilize" in this context includes "bounces up and down between a few too many and a few too little". Now you're getting it. > There are no known mechanisms for fertility to rebound. Now you're being silly and all doom and gloom. > Yet you assume with certainty that the trend will reverse. Predict with high probability based on looking at lots of dynamic systems, yep. > Great to be you. This is hardly an esoteric or unusual viewpoint, perhaps you might look at cheering up and doing away with the OMG we have to breed w/out limit or die!! Seems a tad black or white for the much richer more complex world we live in.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        A lot of dynamic systems go off the rails and destruct, though. We haven't seen any population rebounds yet. Not even close.
        defrost 3y ago
        > "A lot" .. The solar system is still spinning, perhaps you might widen your outlook and quantify. The guide from Applied Mathematics is the only "numbers" that matter long term are -1, 0, 1, sin, and infinity. Systems either dwindle, explode, stabilise, invert, or oscillate ... and everything around us in the universe is part of some system or another. > We haven't seen any population rebounds yet. One example (in humans) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04541 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04541 Another example of a type of constriction with evidence that this likely occured in human population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck Many many examples in nature (eg: cyclic boom | bust of kangaroo populations). Have you considered looking about before uttering readily falsifiable platitudes?
  - bcaxis 3y ago
    There are segments of populations that are fertile. In time, the infertile peoples and cultures die and will be replaced by the fertile ones.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      So you're expecting that somebody else will start doing the right thing instead of you?

ang_cire 3y ago

Barring an apocalyptic scenario, Earth is never going to see populations dip back below 2 billion, and honestly probably never even below 5. It's not even declining now, it's just [growing YoY at 0.8% instead of 1.2%](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populat...). That's the "decline".

thriftwy 3y ago
Why? Why do you assume that people ever start procreating, when they are below replacement most everywhere? When does it stop? Why do you assume it does?
- defrost 3y ago
  There's a lot to be learnt from looking at population dynamics of other species; animals and plants elsewhere on the planet, particulaly those on islands and other constrained by resource environs. It's more plausible to assume our population peaks, as predicted, then falls, and then levels out and stabilises | oscillates. It'd be odd for it to peak and then plummet to zero from 10 or 11 billion.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    Perhaps not to zero, maybe it was just an "algae bloom" of humanity. From which it would dwindle to half a billion thinly distibuted around the globe. And that's a medium scenario. If some kind of collapse happens, we may dip into half a million hunter-gatherers. Or half a million hi-tech bunker dwellers. Population dynamics are not very insightful. We see villages which had population for three millenia deserted, with nobody wishing to live in that empty place and grow their cattle or whatnot.
    - defrost 3y ago
      > And that's a medium scenario. In your opinion, sure. For most that's just a fanciful outlier possibility.
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        You assume that population will stabilize despite fertility falling univerasally all around the globe (with tiny but highly unpleasant exceptions). The economic issues are only projected to get worse. There are no known mechanisms for fertility to rebound. Yet you assume with certainty that the trend will reverse. Great to be you.
        defrost 3y ago
        > You assume that population will stabilize Correct. This is seen in all manner of real world dynamic systems with constraint pressures. "Stabilize" in this context includes "bounces up and down between a few too many and a few too little". Now you're getting it. > There are no known mechanisms for fertility to rebound. Now you're being silly and all doom and gloom. > Yet you assume with certainty that the trend will reverse. Predict with high probability based on looking at lots of dynamic systems, yep. > Great to be you. This is hardly an esoteric or unusual viewpoint, perhaps you might look at cheering up and doing away with the OMG we have to breed w/out limit or die!! Seems a tad black or white for the much richer more complex world we live in.
        thriftwy 3y ago
        A lot of dynamic systems go off the rails and destruct, though. We haven't seen any population rebounds yet. Not even close.
        defrost 3y ago
        > "A lot" .. The solar system is still spinning, perhaps you might widen your outlook and quantify. The guide from Applied Mathematics is the only "numbers" that matter long term are -1, 0, 1, sin, and infinity. Systems either dwindle, explode, stabilise, invert, or oscillate ... and everything around us in the universe is part of some system or another. > We haven't seen any population rebounds yet. One example (in humans) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04541 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04541 Another example of a type of constriction with evidence that this likely occured in human population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck Many many examples in nature (eg: cyclic boom | bust of kangaroo populations). Have you considered looking about before uttering readily falsifiable platitudes?
- bcaxis 3y ago
  There are segments of populations that are fertile. In time, the infertile peoples and cultures die and will be replaced by the fertile ones.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    So you're expecting that somebody else will start doing the right thing instead of you?