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 gr

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.