As often happens, I wish I could upvote and disagree. I’m glad you’re exploring this direction, but I strongly doubt the validity of the calculations, and even more strongly doubt any proposed solution.
We need to determine the carrying capacity in order to determine overpopulation. And the only way to calculate it is with a mathematical model.
You use “determine” in the first sentence and “calculate” in the second. Nowhere do you mention “observe”, and I see no way that your model can be verified or even made likely to track reality. I think the major problem with your model is how “carrying capacity” changes over time, as different resources become and cease to be bottlenecks.
I actually find it quite likely that some subset of humans would be better off with fewer competitors (and cooperators). The result of slowing technological change and innovation is probably a fine thing. It kind of sucks for those who don’t exist, of course, and the path to shrinking (or even holding constant) may be less desirable (though neither seems great) than the “natural” cycle of overpopulation and shrinking.
Models tend to be based on observations, but I agree with you that I should explain how observations would affect the population model. I updated the page to explain this. If I finish learning Javascript, I might even program a basic model to display on my site.
the path to shrinking (or even holding constant) may be less desirable (though neither seems great) than the “natural” cycle of overpopulation and shrinking.
Population growth, overpopulation, and shrinking (war, disease, and famine) is indeed a natural cycle.
Shrinking the population without using population control will require millions or billions of people to die. I’m pretty sure that most people would prefer population control instead, if they understood just how bad the alternative would be.
As often happens, I wish I could upvote and disagree. I’m glad you’re exploring this direction, but I strongly doubt the validity of the calculations, and even more strongly doubt any proposed solution.
You use “determine” in the first sentence and “calculate” in the second. Nowhere do you mention “observe”, and I see no way that your model can be verified or even made likely to track reality. I think the major problem with your model is how “carrying capacity” changes over time, as different resources become and cease to be bottlenecks.
I actually find it quite likely that some subset of humans would be better off with fewer competitors (and cooperators). The result of slowing technological change and innovation is probably a fine thing. It kind of sucks for those who don’t exist, of course, and the path to shrinking (or even holding constant) may be less desirable (though neither seems great) than the “natural” cycle of overpopulation and shrinking.
Can you please explain why you doubt the proposed solution?
Models tend to be based on observations, but I agree with you that I should explain how observations would affect the population model. I updated the page to explain this. If I finish learning Javascript, I might even program a basic model to display on my site.
Population growth, overpopulation, and shrinking (war, disease, and famine) is indeed a natural cycle.
Shrinking the population may have strong social and economic consequences, but it will have to happen at some point since the Earth’s current population is unsustainable. It’s not possible for populations to grow forever.
Shrinking the population without using population control will require millions or billions of people to die. I’m pretty sure that most people would prefer population control instead, if they understood just how bad the alternative would be.