3 ms·
> Attenborough said he was not optimistic about the future and 'things are going to get worse'." How right he is. The Logistic function says mathematically wha
by lutusp 13y ago
> Attenborough said he was not optimistic about the future and 'things are going to get worse'."
How right he is. The Logistic function says mathematically what Sir Richard says with words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function
In the beginning, at the left, the logistic function (a way to mathematically describe the evolution of a biological colony) shows a species struggling against having too few members. In the end, at the right, the function shows a species struggling against having too many. We humans are at the right-hand end of the curve.
But the risk in speaking out about this issue is that sensitive, intelligent people will listen and reduce their numbers, while less sensitive, less intelligent people won't. The result will be fewer sensitive, intelligent people in Earth's future. That, by the way, is an idea I call the "Population Paradox":
http://arachnoid.com/evolution/index.html#The_Population_Paradox http://arachnoid.com/evolution/index.html#The_Population_Par...
- dennisgorelik 13y ago> We humans are at the right-hand end of the curve. Do you have any proof to that? Judging by the amount of unfarmed land available on Earth it looks like number humans is nowhere close to being "too many". > "Population Paradox" There is no paradox here. It's survival of the fittest in its purest form. If increasing reproductive desire is a key to species survival, then species with stronger reproductive desire would survive. If you don't care about reproduction much - your genes are less likely to survive.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]