It’s surprising to me how little scrutiny this claim receives.

Maybe it’s true, but haven’t many species had stable populations for millions of years? Basing it only on human history seems like a sampling error.

musician: gigameshmusic.com | dev: github.com/gigamesh

also: society ≠ sharks 🙂

It seems possible to me that tech enables continued increase in well being without infinite growth, and maybe declining birth rate is evidence of it.

Pragmatism (Security) at OP Labs.
Prev: ConsenSys & Coinbase.

Attribs: Friendly, curious, introverted, mid-witted.
Chans: /eth-security /maurelian /stoicism




Is that true long term? Birth rates predictably decline as societies become more wealthy. I'm all for technology continuing to improve, but translating that into "grow or die!" seems kinda sus.

I think the difference here is 'societies' vs. 'species'.

Because if your society isn't growing, another one will.

Counter example: Pandas face extinction largely bc of their difficulty propagating without human intervention. 

Invasive species w/ no natural predators are good examples of a diff extreme (wild boars in the south, lionfish)

AFIAK stability isn't a constant, but pretty fragile and dependent on external factors and interplay between resources <=> prey <=> predators as population controls.