4 ms·

1) read this http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/how-populations-grow-the-exponential-and-logistic-13240157 http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowled

by waps 12y ago

1) read this 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) realize why populations "stabilize" ... (which for all species but humans and domesticated species means that the rate of die-off is equal to the rate of exponential growth. It does NOT mean that the individual members of the species aren't growing exponentially). There are many examples of species that stopped growing exponentially, or lost the ability to do so. They're all extinct.

schiffern 12y ago
Nice read! I'll keep that link as a digestable intro to population dynamics. I now think our misunderstanding is merely semantic. I'm talking about physical growth (the growth of measurable quantities in a system through time, e.g. population counts). This would of course be net growth, as an individual dying off would reduce the count. You seem to using "growth" as "replacement rate". Of course the replacement rate must be non-zero, but that says nothing about the net growth rate. >It does NOT mean that the individual members of the species aren't growing exponentially Wait… individuals grow exponentially? https://what-if.xkcd.com/77/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/77/ :) >There are many examples of species that stopped growing exponentially, or lost the ability to do so. They're all extinct. That's true. It's also true that any element that never stops growing exponentially (again, net growth) is bound for the same fate.
coldtea 12y ago
>There are many examples of species that stopped growing exponentially, or lost the ability to do so. They're all extinct. Those are animal species. We have other talents, and other issues to solve.
- waps 12y ago
  The idea that the human population is somehow exempt from the natural laws on population sizes is wholly unsupported by history. The human population follows a population curve near-perfectly, better than many animal species.

by waps 12y ago

schiffern 12y ago

Nice read! I'll keep that link as a digestable intro to population dynamics. I now think our misunderstanding is merely semantic. I'm talking about physical growth (the growth of measurable quantities in a system through time, e.g. population counts). This would of course be net growth, as an individual dying off would reduce the count. You seem to using "growth" as "replacement rate". Of course the replacement rate must be non-zero, but that says nothing about the net growth rate. >It does NOT mean that the individual members of the species aren't growing exponentially Wait… individuals grow exponentially? https://what-if.xkcd.com/77/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/77/ :) >There are many examples of species that stopped growing exponentially, or lost the ability to do so. They're all extinct. That's true. It's also true that any element that never stops growing exponentially (again, net growth) is bound for the same fate.

coldtea 12y ago

>There are many examples of species that stopped growing exponentially, or lost the ability to do so. They're all extinct. Those are animal species. We have other talents, and other issues to solve.

waps 12y ago
The idea that the human population is somehow exempt from the natural laws on population sizes is wholly unsupported by history. The human population follows a population curve near-perfectly, better than many animal species.