Demosthenes @Demosthenes@qoto.org

@freemo Sudan still has some of the worst quality of life, I wouldn't really consider it a middle-income country.

if fertility rates go down to two births per couple while survivability increases, then population only goes up for another 5 decades or so, then stabilizes as an equilibrium is met between births and deaths. That equilibrium point isn't necessarily at carrying capacity if the reduced reproduction rate is caused by cultural changes instead of resource limitations.

@freemo looking at population growth rates shows an incomplete picture. When nations first begin escaping poverty, life span significantly increases as medical care improves longevity, increasing the relative proportion of older-aged people and surviving children. This increase in surviving children causes people to reproduce differently, having first three then two children on average.

This is why I keep focusing on reproduction rates, because it will matter far more in the log run than population rates which will increase as median age increases from healthcare improvements from vaccines and sanitation. The reproduction rates of middle-income countries are mostly rapidly approaching 2.

@sir it helps to disconnect completely from the news sometimes. Events that happen on the national stage aren't something that we can affect beyond voting, so it's good to focus on things we can influence.

@freemo if we're talking nationwide then, then population density is extremely low in the US compared to many countries. Why then would our native reproduction rates be so low?

Note that inequality limits access to land in most countries nowadays, not just the US, yet many lower-income nations still have high reproduction rates.

@freemo population density in the US is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than in many Asian countries, or even in many cities in Africa. If reproduction rate was a function of population density,wouldn't we see higher growth rates in most of the US?

@freemo survival requires defeating entropy. If it takes too much of an effort to obtain certain chemicals, organisms die as a result of the negative energy balance. The existing organisms compete with one another to get the nutrients that are actually energetically accessible.

I think we're bickering a bit about minor details here. We're really just talking about the carrying capacity of humans. You're saying that we've hit our capacity in USA, right? If that were the case, then why would reproduction rates be highest in regions where poverty is highest, like in rural Africa?

@freemo resources have always been scarce. If not limited by land, we've been historically been limited by fixed nitrogen, available micro or macronutrients, or on a tribal basis, security. People still starve in many regions because of resource limitations, and it's actually in those sorts of areas that reproduction rates are highest.

Quality of life is not a need. If you look at Maslow's heitarchy of needs, things like self-actualization and the need to feel like a part of a tribe are well above things like food, water, and shelter. Quality of life is a luxury given by being secure in your survival and continued existence.

@freemo I gotta head to bed. Again, I highly recommend that book Factfulness. It's very erudite.

Have a great night!

@freemo people who choose not to have 15 kids aren't hitting their carrying capacity, they're just making a trade-off between quality of life and family size. A mother could have 15 children and get most of their calories from the dumpster. They can get a minimum wage job and just buy rice, eating like they do in Subsaharan Africa. But they don't. THAT is the abberation.

People used to have as many kids as they could, and if some died, oh well. They still live like that in a lot of the world. But people are getting beyond that, and it's going to change humanity.

@freemo this is absolutely true, but I'm not sure you truly grasp how much of an abberation this is. It's the nature of an organism to reproduce until it reaches carrying capacity, generally stopped only by a limitation on resources. This causes considerable conflict.

Humans are reaching a point where there will be population stasis _without_ actually hitting their carrying capacity. Over time, that will considerably reduce the chance of global conflict.

There will still be conflict over scarce global resources, but the ferocity of those conflicts will be significantly suppressed. All civil wars and most conflicts are precipitated by famines and resource shortages.

It bodes well for the long-term stability of our species, making it likely that we'll at least make it to Mars before killing ourselves.

@freemo complete industrialization isn't necessary for the population to level off, only a certain threshold of security. Most nations see a generational population surge when medical and economic status reach a threshold of childhood survival. The next generation almost always has about 3 children, with subsequent generations having on average 2, which does cause a population decline over time.

i highly recommend you check out that book, it explains it much better than me..

The absolutely only reason why industrialized countries are still seeing a population increase is because of immigration and the children of immigrants. The reproduction rate of natives in the US, Canada, and Europe are all below 2.

@freemo you're talking about the US population, which is heavily affected by immigration. I'm talking about the global population, which is overall seeing a massive levelling off. When lower-income countries become middle-income, reproduction rates plummit as parents become sure that their children will survive, combined with the trend that child labor also generally becomes outlawed, significantly increasing the cost of childcare and maintenance.

@q @Terry @boob yes

@Terry LOL you must not live in Arkansas.

@freemo actually, our growth rate is quickly leveling off, and current projections predict that the population will stabilize at about 11 billion.

I highly recommend the book Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think. It describes several common cognitive distortions pushed by media companies that make people think that things are much worse off than they actually are. Nuclear weapons are still an existential threat, and global warming probably will be within a century and a half, but population levels won't be too big of an issue. Several decades at current rates of technological advancement will bring things that we can't predict at the moment.

@Terry what a fucking manchild. I won't weep when Boogie protects himself and his property.

@freemo our facing grace is our swiftly approaching capacity for genetic engineering. Not only will we be able to modify organisms that will then improve the environment(Like making Azolla salt water resistant, leading to incredible carbon sequestration), but we will be able to modify ourselves to be perfectly suited to nearly any environment. Any similarly intelligent organism would likely eventually gain the same ability.

@thor yup. It's a fast, and they're actually really good for you if you only do it a few days a year.

@CageNGA lol

@feld no that's racist. They were literally called "lawn jockeys."