4 ms·
"Whereas in the simulations, the larger populations were allowed to have only one child per couple". This seemed a little strange to me. If you have only a sin
by Ellipsis753 13y ago
"Whereas in the simulations, the larger populations were allowed to have only one child per couple".
This seemed a little strange to me. If you have only a single child per couple wouldn't you expect the population to at least half each generation?
- bhauer 13y agoI think this just means that the random number selected for children from a couple was allowed to range between 1 and N, whereas for the smaller populations, it is between 2 and N. It doesn't mean all couples generate 1 child.
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoPeople have children early in life. Even at that rate, the population can grow without bound. E.g. if people lived forever its clear the population would still grow.
- Ellipsis753 13y agoLiving forever is somewhat an exception. But even if people live forever there will still be a hard bound. Imagine a population of 8 people (4 couples). With one child per couple the first 4 couples will have 4 kids. These 4 kids will have on child per couple giving 2 kids. The 2 kids make a single couple which can have one more kid. The last kid cannot make a couple with anyone without someone having had more than one kid. So starting with 16 immortal people having immortal kids you cannot get a population above 15. (8+4+2+1=15) So for a stable population in the long run couples need to be having on average around 2 kids each (assuming they are not immortal, if everyone is immortal then no kids are required for a stable population). Of course if we take "couple" very literally then perhaps we might allow people to have as many kids as they chose provided they have each with a different partner (to form a new "couple"). This seems like rule bending though. Without rule bending one kid per couple just couldn't work in the long run.