Vladimir_M comments on Is Kiryas Joel an Unhappy Place? - Less Wrong

20 Post author: gwern 23 April 2011 12:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (186)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 23 April 2011 10:09:06PM *  4 points [-]

Theoretically, it is possible that a wealthy society might be in a Malthusian equilibrium because people would like to reproduce more but have very high minimum standards for per-capita family wealth.

This society would not be evolutionarily stable since the members with the lowest standards will reproduce more causing the minimum standard to decrease. This process will continue until it reaches the point where standards are so low that any additional children would simply starve to death.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 23 April 2011 10:20:58PM *  1 point [-]

Yes, but evolution is much slower than cultural change. In principle, it is possible that a society might have very high and very uniform standards for the minimum wealth per child, so that it would take a very long time before evolution undermined these standards noticeably. In the meantime, it would make sense to speak of a Malthusian equilibrium.

In reality, of course, such a situation is highly improbable and (to my knowledge) not attested historically. So it's not really a mistake to equate a Malthusian equilibrium with awful poverty and constant threat of famine. (The latter would of course also have its analogues in a Malthusian upload society, which are not hard to imagine.)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 23 April 2011 10:28:53PM 1 point [-]

I wasn't referring simply to biological evolution.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 23 April 2011 10:42:56PM 2 points [-]

Fair enough, but that's basically what I also mean when I say that the scenario is possible in principle but extremely unlikely in practice.