6 ms·

I don't understand how any species escapes logistic growth without strict population control or interstellar travel.

pants2 3y ago
Inventing birth control helps a lot.
wsc981 3y ago
In the right circumstances, birth control happens automatically. As people get more wealthy, there seems to be less incentive to have lots of children. Perhaps due to better healthcare (less deaths in childbirth) and more securities for old age (eg. pensions). Seems Africa is at the moment the only continent that still has population growth (and quite massive). https://www.statista.com/statistics/272789/world-population-by-continent/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272789/world-population-...
- hehhehaha 3y ago
  Disagree, wealthy countries are labor resource constrained so the cost of child care balloons compared to wages. And I predict that as the cost of labor goes up, people will want to have more kids again because it will be profitable, not unlike subsistence farmers wanting kids to work on the farm.
  - throwawaysleep 3y ago
    Childcare has the problem of not getting more productive as other areas do get more productive, increasing the cost as wages go up.
- keiferski 3y ago
  I think this is more a consequence of consumerism and the media-nature of modern society and not directly from increased populations. It just seems that way because science allowing for larger food crops, less child mortality, etc. coincided with the rise of media technology.
  - simonh 3y ago
    What's the mechanism by which consumerism and media lead to lower child births though? It's easy to see that in poorer countries with minimal or no pensions or social security having more children leads to greater productive capacity for the family, and a better chance of the parents being cared for in old age. Family connections are crucial support networks everyone relies on. Each extra child is another insurance policy for the future. In wealthy countries with pensions and social security none of that is an issue.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      Maybe it's not so much that media technology itself leads to lower child births, but that the particular media being pushed results in lower child births. Consumerism is the vehicle by which this happens, because corporations have little use for the family unit and much use for individualized consumers that buy, not make things. My interpretation is that there are innumerable cultural things that are popular nowadays which discourage people from having children, whether that be TV shows that make "family values" seem outdated and backwards, urban housing that's too small for families, and so forth. My general point is more that the problems with birth rates are more of a contemporary cultural issue (largely an exported Western one) and not something that just automatically comes with technological/economic development.
      - simonh 3y ago
        I just did some digging around on the research on this and that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere, and it's a well studied issue. After all, for example existing housing stock hasn't got any smaller so that's easy to correct for in the data. The main correlative factors seem to be economic affluence, higher education levels meaning more women have careers, and access to birth control. I really don't but the corporations pushing an agenda theory. Like all conspiracy theories, people doing the conspiring would have to actually conspire. They would to communicate about it, lots of people would know, some of them would change their minds, there would be leaks, especially for a conspiracy that has broad reach and engages with huge swathes of public culture communications.
- metabagel 3y ago
  Couple of factors... People in developing countries tend to have children in order to boost the family's income. As the economy develops, this turns out to no longer be beneficial. Generally, people choose to have less children as infant mortality goes down. Introduction of better medical care leads to a temporary spike in population, as more people live longer. But, lower infant mortality means that people don't need to have as many children in order to have some survive, and so they typically choose to have fewer children. The adjustment period can be a problem, as we have seen in the developing world.
- smokel 3y ago
  I hear this argument a lot, but it makes no sense. How would an economic phenomenon (requiring a typical form of green leaves to guarantee a happy life at old age) precisely counter a biological phenomenon (a desire to procreate)? It seems more likely that readily available birth control and a particular willingness of women to join the labour force is the cause here. What is stopping extremely rich narcissists from creating thousands of children once technology allows for it? We're in for a horrible population growth if you ask me.
henry_bone 3y ago
Malthusian nonsense. As societies develop and become richer, birth rates drop. Also, over time, our ability to produce more food has always risen to the challenge.
- hehhehaha 3y ago
  logistic growth in populations is a direct response against malthusian theories
- smokel 3y ago
  You may be mixing up causation and correlation in the argument that birth rates will drop. (See also several other comments on this topic in this thread.)
twothreeone 3y ago
And even with population control technological advancements will inevitably lead to growing energy demands (e.g., see https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sam-altman-wants-7-trillion https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sam-altman-wants-7-trillion to spark your imagination). Medium term we're not going to get around leaving the gravity well, or else embrace decline.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > And even with population control technological advancements will inevitably lead to growing energy demands Why?

Inventing birth control helps a lot.

In the right circumstances, birth control happens automatically. As people get more wealthy, there seems to be less incentive to have lots of children. Perhaps due to better healthcare (less deaths in childbirth) and more securities for old age (eg. pensions). Seems Africa is at the moment the only continent that still has population growth (and quite massive). https://www.statista.com/statistics/272789/world-population-by-continent/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272789/world-population-...

hehhehaha 3y ago
Disagree, wealthy countries are labor resource constrained so the cost of child care balloons compared to wages. And I predict that as the cost of labor goes up, people will want to have more kids again because it will be profitable, not unlike subsistence farmers wanting kids to work on the farm.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  Childcare has the problem of not getting more productive as other areas do get more productive, increasing the cost as wages go up.
keiferski 3y ago
I think this is more a consequence of consumerism and the media-nature of modern society and not directly from increased populations. It just seems that way because science allowing for larger food crops, less child mortality, etc. coincided with the rise of media technology.
- simonh 3y ago
  What's the mechanism by which consumerism and media lead to lower child births though? It's easy to see that in poorer countries with minimal or no pensions or social security having more children leads to greater productive capacity for the family, and a better chance of the parents being cared for in old age. Family connections are crucial support networks everyone relies on. Each extra child is another insurance policy for the future. In wealthy countries with pensions and social security none of that is an issue.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Maybe it's not so much that media technology itself leads to lower child births, but that the particular media being pushed results in lower child births. Consumerism is the vehicle by which this happens, because corporations have little use for the family unit and much use for individualized consumers that buy, not make things. My interpretation is that there are innumerable cultural things that are popular nowadays which discourage people from having children, whether that be TV shows that make "family values" seem outdated and backwards, urban housing that's too small for families, and so forth. My general point is more that the problems with birth rates are more of a contemporary cultural issue (largely an exported Western one) and not something that just automatically comes with technological/economic development.
    - simonh 3y ago
      I just did some digging around on the research on this and that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere, and it's a well studied issue. After all, for example existing housing stock hasn't got any smaller so that's easy to correct for in the data. The main correlative factors seem to be economic affluence, higher education levels meaning more women have careers, and access to birth control. I really don't but the corporations pushing an agenda theory. Like all conspiracy theories, people doing the conspiring would have to actually conspire. They would to communicate about it, lots of people would know, some of them would change their minds, there would be leaks, especially for a conspiracy that has broad reach and engages with huge swathes of public culture communications.
metabagel 3y ago
Couple of factors... People in developing countries tend to have children in order to boost the family's income. As the economy develops, this turns out to no longer be beneficial. Generally, people choose to have less children as infant mortality goes down. Introduction of better medical care leads to a temporary spike in population, as more people live longer. But, lower infant mortality means that people don't need to have as many children in order to have some survive, and so they typically choose to have fewer children. The adjustment period can be a problem, as we have seen in the developing world.
smokel 3y ago
I hear this argument a lot, but it makes no sense. How would an economic phenomenon (requiring a typical form of green leaves to guarantee a happy life at old age) precisely counter a biological phenomenon (a desire to procreate)? It seems more likely that readily available birth control and a particular willingness of women to join the labour force is the cause here. What is stopping extremely rich narcissists from creating thousands of children once technology allows for it? We're in for a horrible population growth if you ask me.

henry_bone 3y ago

Malthusian nonsense. As societies develop and become richer, birth rates drop. Also, over time, our ability to produce more food has always risen to the challenge.

hehhehaha 3y ago
logistic growth in populations is a direct response against malthusian theories
smokel 3y ago
You may be mixing up causation and correlation in the argument that birth rates will drop. (See also several other comments on this topic in this thread.)

twothreeone 3y ago

And even with population control technological advancements will inevitably lead to growing energy demands (e.g., see https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sam-altman-wants-7-trillion https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sam-altman-wants-7-trillion to spark your imagination). Medium term we're not going to get around leaving the gravity well, or else embrace decline.

cyberax 3y ago
> And even with population control technological advancements will inevitably lead to growing energy demands Why?