Re: accept no limits (was Re: sex, yet again ~%6 (was Re: ;
Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Thu, 07 Nov 1996 17:37:21 -0500
Eugene Leitl wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Nov 1996 paul_tweedy@polk.com wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov. 6 'gene writes:
> > >But that's what physics and extrapolation says. You can't lick Malthus,
> > >nor exponential growth in a limited universe, not on the really long
> > >run.
> >
> > paul writes:
> >
> > 'gene, what the hell are you talking about? Since when is Malthus one
>
> He's no prophet (I humbly hope), only a warner. (Interesting: "malthus"
> gives 3274 hits by AltaVista...
>
> http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/gro/gro6.html
>
> and
>
> http://128.95.12.62/malthus.html
>
> looks relatively readable).
>
> > of the prophets of the future? Didn't the massive failures of the
> > predictions of Paul Ehrlick *the Population Bomb* from the Sixties
> > based on the extrapolations of Malthus teach us anything about the
> > creative power of the human mind to overcome such simple entropic
> > pessimism?
>
> Um, last time I looked population growth was still hyperbolic. It may
> not have topped some extrapolation, yet it certainly has dwarfed the
> majority of them. Of course, if you have some recent, less gloomy data I
> am always ready to be convinced...
>
> Anyway, there is no such thing as unlimited growth in a limited universe
> (ok, it might not be limited, but we cannot tell yet). You might expand
> into space almost at the speed of light, but trailing just after the life
> shock wave a saturation zone exists. The maximum concentration of beings on
> a given petri dish, medium being atoms and energy.
>
> At least that's what current mainstream physics says.
>
> Wrong?
>
> 'gene
Actually, taking into account the limits on migration imposed by
national borders to examine the population curves, it seems to be more
of a third order equation....
Mike