5 ms·

Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? In some countries that is food, in many modern societies now it se

Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? In some countries that is food, in many modern societies now it seems to be time. We know that the population can't grow exponentially forever, but other than a recent dip in fertility rates, we have seen a fairly steady exponential growth. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm

tokenadult 17y ago
Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? Who says so? Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings?
- roc 17y ago
  It strikes me as more of a tautology. If a population stops growing, then clearly it's because it has run out of some resource, particularly if you go so far as to include things such as 'time' as a resource.
  - Periodic 17y ago
    I think it is used more to predict how a system will respond to a change in resources. If you reduce the amount of resources available to a population, that population will shrink approximately proportionally (until there is enough for the rest to survive), and if you increase the resources the population will grow to use those resources reasonably quickly. It also points out that it is the scarcest resource that limits growth. Increasing food will not allow the population grow if there isn't enough water, sun, etc. My point was mostly to point out that we may have some other scarcity that isn't food which is limiting the growth rate in industrialized countries, while increasing the food in starving countries will just cause the population to grow until it hits the limit of some other resource. I suspect that it isn't any sort of time scarcity that is limiting current human growth, but more likely the impact of contraceptives messing with our normal biological mechanisms.
- zacechola 17y ago
  Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings? Because it appears we're also DNA replicators. But, let me play devil's advocate on your behalf, because I like your question. Let's assume that humans do realize their population problems and act to level growth, or reduce it. There's a strong argument that they would also act to reduce their resources, as well. Fewer people means less food necessary to feed the population; So why grow it?
- Periodic 17y ago
  Last I checked we were still animals that are, as a population, driven by instinct. We do have at least one significant difference from other species in our intelligence/self-awareness, but I challenge you to find any significantly large (compared to world population) group that acts even mostly out of rationality.
ivankirigin 17y ago
Just to be clear: that could be a sudden shift that causes starvation. At least, that is the fear.

tokenadult 17y ago

Isn't it a law in ecology that a population will grow to the limit of its scarcest resource? Who says so? Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings?

roc 17y ago
It strikes me as more of a tautology. If a population stops growing, then clearly it's because it has run out of some resource, particularly if you go so far as to include things such as 'time' as a resource.
- Periodic 17y ago
  I think it is used more to predict how a system will respond to a change in resources. If you reduce the amount of resources available to a population, that population will shrink approximately proportionally (until there is enough for the rest to survive), and if you increase the resources the population will grow to use those resources reasonably quickly. It also points out that it is the scarcest resource that limits growth. Increasing food will not allow the population grow if there isn't enough water, sun, etc. My point was mostly to point out that we may have some other scarcity that isn't food which is limiting the growth rate in industrialized countries, while increasing the food in starving countries will just cause the population to grow until it hits the limit of some other resource. I suspect that it isn't any sort of time scarcity that is limiting current human growth, but more likely the impact of contraceptives messing with our normal biological mechanisms.
zacechola 17y ago
Why would an observation that may (or may not) apply to bacteria or even to wolves apply to human beings? Because it appears we're also DNA replicators. But, let me play devil's advocate on your behalf, because I like your question. Let's assume that humans do realize their population problems and act to level growth, or reduce it. There's a strong argument that they would also act to reduce their resources, as well. Fewer people means less food necessary to feed the population; So why grow it?
Periodic 17y ago
Last I checked we were still animals that are, as a population, driven by instinct. We do have at least one significant difference from other species in our intelligence/self-awareness, but I challenge you to find any significantly large (compared to world population) group that acts even mostly out of rationality.

ivankirigin 17y ago

Just to be clear: that could be a sudden shift that causes starvation. At least, that is the fear.