3 ms·

Isn't the malthusian argument that either current population has already passed the "support" threshold of the planet or will do so soon ? This is a similar, b

by waps 12y ago

Isn't the malthusian argument that either current population has already passed the "support" threshold of the planet or will do so soon ? This is a similar, but not the same argument. He's simply claiming that taking away the brakes on population growth will cause exponential growth. That argument is simply called "evolution theory", and is not controversial at all. Theory [1] and practice [2] agree (note that logistic growth happens because there is a new limit hit. If no new limit comes then we would be on a logistic curve going to +inf. If you calculate that limit, incidentally, you get an exponential growth curve). The counter argument "but won't population growth drop by itself" is false, because the population is not monolithic. If some group decides to limit procreation, that group will simply (and quickly) be replaced by one that won't. And if necessary, by another species. [1] http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/how-populations-grow-the-exponential-and-logistic-13240157 http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/how-populat... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia

mikeash 12y ago
He's also assuming that basic income takes away the brakes on population growth, and that is a completely unsupported idea. Experience so far suggests that the best way to limit human reproduction is to give them more resources, not fewer. The poorest countries in the world are generally growing the fastest, while the richest have trouble just keeping their numbers from falling.
- waps 12y ago
  > The counter argument "but won't population growth drop by itself" is false, because the population is not monolithic. If some group decides to limit procreation, that group will simply (and quickly) be replaced by one that won't. And if necessary, by another species. You made the exact counter argument I provided in my post, and the reason it is invalid was already stated. To delve a bit more deeply : This is not true. Now before you point out the statistics : it currently appears true. But here's the key : there is nothing in evolution theory that states any particular situation cannot deviate from the predicted value. Large groups can reduce in number. However exceptions (like the one we're currently in) become increasingly unlikely with their duration. It's similar to the second law of thermodynamics. There is no law of physics preventing a billard player from sinking n balls in a single shot, but as n increases it becomes increasingly unlikely. The same is true here. The issue is confused by a specific large population currently choosing to have few kids (mostly because of living space limitations and state support imho), and another population being forced into reproductive limits (Han Chinese). I would argue, therefore, that if you look deeper, the numbers actually support the idea that population growth always happens until it runs into limits. There are other exceptions. There is no law of physics that says that a gas body cannot suddenly drop 100 degrees in temperature without losing any energy at all. This is simply extremely unlikely to happen (what needs to happen is that the collisions between the gas and it's surroundings drops. That is a random occurence, which has an average likelihood that's pretty constant, but nevertheless that drop can just happen for no reason at all). TLDR: If you don't force population to drop, "in the limit", it will increase. No exceptions. There are large random fluctuations that can obscure this over any short timeframe though.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    You're assuming that the timeframe for this is anything remotely relevant. All indications are that humans are changing their own circumstances far faster than evolution can keep up. The kinds of changes you describe take tens or hundreds of thousands of years at best, and more likely millions. Sure, if things stay exactly as they are, then given enough time, humans in wealthy countries will evolve to have lots of children again. But things won't stay exactly as they are for anywhere near long enough, not by several orders of magnitude. I hate these posts that go, "I'm just assuming completely reasonable thing X." No, you're also assuming rather controversial and far-fetched things Y and Z, you just assume them so hard that you don't even mention it, possibly don't even realize it.

by waps 12y ago

mikeash 12y ago

He's also assuming that basic income takes away the brakes on population growth, and that is a completely unsupported idea. Experience so far suggests that the best way to limit human reproduction is to give them more resources, not fewer. The poorest countries in the world are generally growing the fastest, while the richest have trouble just keeping their numbers from falling.

waps 12y ago
> The counter argument "but won't population growth drop by itself" is false, because the population is not monolithic. If some group decides to limit procreation, that group will simply (and quickly) be replaced by one that won't. And if necessary, by another species. You made the exact counter argument I provided in my post, and the reason it is invalid was already stated. To delve a bit more deeply : This is not true. Now before you point out the statistics : it currently appears true. But here's the key : there is nothing in evolution theory that states any particular situation cannot deviate from the predicted value. Large groups can reduce in number. However exceptions (like the one we're currently in) become increasingly unlikely with their duration. It's similar to the second law of thermodynamics. There is no law of physics preventing a billard player from sinking n balls in a single shot, but as n increases it becomes increasingly unlikely. The same is true here. The issue is confused by a specific large population currently choosing to have few kids (mostly because of living space limitations and state support imho), and another population being forced into reproductive limits (Han Chinese). I would argue, therefore, that if you look deeper, the numbers actually support the idea that population growth always happens until it runs into limits. There are other exceptions. There is no law of physics that says that a gas body cannot suddenly drop 100 degrees in temperature without losing any energy at all. This is simply extremely unlikely to happen (what needs to happen is that the collisions between the gas and it's surroundings drops. That is a random occurence, which has an average likelihood that's pretty constant, but nevertheless that drop can just happen for no reason at all). TLDR: If you don't force population to drop, "in the limit", it will increase. No exceptions. There are large random fluctuations that can obscure this over any short timeframe though.
- mikeash 12y ago
  You're assuming that the timeframe for this is anything remotely relevant. All indications are that humans are changing their own circumstances far faster than evolution can keep up. The kinds of changes you describe take tens or hundreds of thousands of years at best, and more likely millions. Sure, if things stay exactly as they are, then given enough time, humans in wealthy countries will evolve to have lots of children again. But things won't stay exactly as they are for anywhere near long enough, not by several orders of magnitude. I hate these posts that go, "I'm just assuming completely reasonable thing X." No, you're also assuming rather controversial and far-fetched things Y and Z, you just assume them so hard that you don't even mention it, possibly don't even realize it.