24 ms·

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'

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?
        thriftwy 3y ago
        What if it's "dwindle" or "oscillate not far from zero" for humanity?

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?
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        What if it's "dwindle" or "oscillate not far from zero" for humanity?