4 ms·

When there's a stable supply of food, medicine, and housing people reproduce. More aggregate people implies more aggregate demand. Suppose only 5% of the popul

by RhysU 1y ago

When there's a stable supply of food, medicine, and housing people reproduce. More aggregate people implies more aggregate demand. Suppose only 5% of the population breeds like rabbits in the presence of food, medicine, and housing. It won't take long for that cultural subpopulation to dominate. Humans are not unlike microorganisms in a petri dish when one adds nutrients. All life is.

thrance 1y ago
Wtf are you even talking about. Do you feel like some people should be starved, homeless and sick because else they would "breed like rabbits"? What a deranged view to hold. If you really believe this shit, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition Humans are very much unlike microorganisms. Populations don't explode when their needs are met, quite the contrary.
- RhysU 1y ago
  I said human wants are limitless. You said no they're not. I said yes they are, giving the example of population growth as a way that aggregate demand increases even if some people are completely satisfied. This is ECON 101 and a small amount of biology. That's what I am talking about. Notice "need" and "want" are 2 distinct words and you are reading past the difference. Demographic transition in one culture does not imply universal demographic transition across the species. Because those who haven't yet transitioned will control population growth rates. Now why did I say this? Because you opened by presuming that socialism would solve human wants. Which is nonsense. Nothing solves human wants.
  - thrance 1y ago
    Demographic transition is absolutely a universal phenomenon, no country has ever been observed taking another path. I reiterate, the need for food, housing and medicine is not unlimited. The population is not infinite and humans have a limited need of these things. Do the math: finite×finite=finite "Nothing solves human wants": what about prices? It seems like it does. It's a flawed solution that leaves some with nothing, but it does solve it. Now, what if we distributed the basic utilities on an as-needed basis. That too would solve "human wants" on those things, and would ideally leave none lacking. Please don't quote "econ 101 and basic biology" at me without actually engaging with what I'm saying. You're ignoring material reality and using abstract nonsense to deter from the subject.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
jjk166 1y ago
People reproduced much more when food, medicine, and housing were much more scarce. Humans are quite a bit different from micro-organisms. Humans are a K-selected species - the optimal strategy for passing on our genes is to invest as many resources as possible into the smallest viable number of offspring. In the past people needed large numbers of children because infant mortality was very high - the average number of children that actually survived to reproductive age in rural, pre-industrial populations was less than 2. Now that infant mortality is low, there is no need for spares. We see this quite clearly. Wealthy nations have much lower fertility rates. Wealthy individuals tend to have fewer kids. Even those pursuing large families have smaller families than they did in the recent past - my grandfather was the youngest of 12, when was the last time you met someone with 12 kids? Even Elon Musk, one of the richest people in human history whose net worth exceeds what a medieval peasant would make in their lifetime a million times over and who has an obsession with maximizing his reproduction has a number of offspring that would not be seen as exceptionally large by a medieval peasant, particularly when spread across multiple women. Realistically, no one is going on a breeding frenzy because they can suddenly afford a 3 bedroom apartment.
- RhysU 1y ago
  Thank you for the detailed response. > Humans are a K-selected species - the optimal strategy for passing on our genes is to invest as many resources as possible into the smallest viable number of offspring. It's certainly fashionable these days in the West. I don't know that I would call it optimal. Optimal now for passing along genes is probably donating at a sperm bank after getting into a regionally swanky university. A joke, of course, but notice it stacks! Certainly the donating to the sperm bank plus what you profess dominates what you profess in isolation. Since I just improved the strategy, it wasn't optimal. > People reproduced much more when food, medicine, and housing were much more scarce. Yet the population was smaller. You're talking per capita rates and I am not. We successfully produce more viable adults now in absolute terms than ever before, the number of live births notwithstanding. Otherwise, global population would drop. Which it hasn't. Definitely slower growth but not shrinking: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growth https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growth rate That site says "The latest world population projections indicate that world population will reach 10 billion persons in the year 2060 and 10.2 billion in 2100." > Humans are quite a bit different from micro-organisms Humans increasingly inhabit inhabitable parts of the Earth with increasing density. This species-wide growth, regardless of the optimal reproductive strategy for any single individual, is like a microorganism spreading across a petri dish. We're starting to run into the edges of the dish so we're slowing down a tad. But, likely growth for at least the next 75 projected years per the above 10.2B people in 2100 projection. Going back a step: My point is there's no end in sight for needs around housing, food, and medicine. Human beings aren't special. We consume all available resources, in part due to population growth. I did not expect population growth to be such a controversial topic. Population, it grows.

by RhysU 1y ago

thrance 1y ago

Wtf are you even talking about. Do you feel like some people should be starved, homeless and sick because else they would "breed like rabbits"? What a deranged view to hold. If you really believe this shit, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition Humans are very much unlike microorganisms. Populations don't explode when their needs are met, quite the contrary.

RhysU 1y ago
I said human wants are limitless. You said no they're not. I said yes they are, giving the example of population growth as a way that aggregate demand increases even if some people are completely satisfied. This is ECON 101 and a small amount of biology. That's what I am talking about. Notice "need" and "want" are 2 distinct words and you are reading past the difference. Demographic transition in one culture does not imply universal demographic transition across the species. Because those who haven't yet transitioned will control population growth rates. Now why did I say this? Because you opened by presuming that socialism would solve human wants. Which is nonsense. Nothing solves human wants.
- thrance 1y ago
  Demographic transition is absolutely a universal phenomenon, no country has ever been observed taking another path. I reiterate, the need for food, housing and medicine is not unlimited. The population is not infinite and humans have a limited need of these things. Do the math: finite×finite=finite "Nothing solves human wants": what about prices? It seems like it does. It's a flawed solution that leaves some with nothing, but it does solve it. Now, what if we distributed the basic utilities on an as-needed basis. That too would solve "human wants" on those things, and would ideally leave none lacking. Please don't quote "econ 101 and basic biology" at me without actually engaging with what I'm saying. You're ignoring material reality and using abstract nonsense to deter from the subject.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

jjk166 1y ago

People reproduced much more when food, medicine, and housing were much more scarce. Humans are quite a bit different from micro-organisms. Humans are a K-selected species - the optimal strategy for passing on our genes is to invest as many resources as possible into the smallest viable number of offspring. In the past people needed large numbers of children because infant mortality was very high - the average number of children that actually survived to reproductive age in rural, pre-industrial populations was less than 2. Now that infant mortality is low, there is no need for spares. We see this quite clearly. Wealthy nations have much lower fertility rates. Wealthy individuals tend to have fewer kids. Even those pursuing large families have smaller families than they did in the recent past - my grandfather was the youngest of 12, when was the last time you met someone with 12 kids? Even Elon Musk, one of the richest people in human history whose net worth exceeds what a medieval peasant would make in their lifetime a million times over and who has an obsession with maximizing his reproduction has a number of offspring that would not be seen as exceptionally large by a medieval peasant, particularly when spread across multiple women. Realistically, no one is going on a breeding frenzy because they can suddenly afford a 3 bedroom apartment.

RhysU 1y ago
Thank you for the detailed response. > Humans are a K-selected species - the optimal strategy for passing on our genes is to invest as many resources as possible into the smallest viable number of offspring. It's certainly fashionable these days in the West. I don't know that I would call it optimal. Optimal now for passing along genes is probably donating at a sperm bank after getting into a regionally swanky university. A joke, of course, but notice it stacks! Certainly the donating to the sperm bank plus what you profess dominates what you profess in isolation. Since I just improved the strategy, it wasn't optimal. > People reproduced much more when food, medicine, and housing were much more scarce. Yet the population was smaller. You're talking per capita rates and I am not. We successfully produce more viable adults now in absolute terms than ever before, the number of live births notwithstanding. Otherwise, global population would drop. Which it hasn't. Definitely slower growth but not shrinking: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growth https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growth rate That site says "The latest world population projections indicate that world population will reach 10 billion persons in the year 2060 and 10.2 billion in 2100." > Humans are quite a bit different from micro-organisms Humans increasingly inhabit inhabitable parts of the Earth with increasing density. This species-wide growth, regardless of the optimal reproductive strategy for any single individual, is like a microorganism spreading across a petri dish. We're starting to run into the edges of the dish so we're slowing down a tad. But, likely growth for at least the next 75 projected years per the above 10.2B people in 2100 projection. Going back a step: My point is there's no end in sight for needs around housing, food, and medicine. Human beings aren't special. We consume all available resources, in part due to population growth. I did not expect population growth to be such a controversial topic. Population, it grows.