←back to thread

Lotka–Volterra Equations

(en.wikipedia.org)
53 points ustad | 4 comments | 10 Apr 25 19:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.702s | source
Show context
Kim_Bruning ◴[13 Apr 25 23:10 UTC] No.43676532[source]▶
A lot of people don't get further than Malthus, and don't realize that he was just the first pioneer. They think "Malthus was wrong", and don't realize the rabbit hole that opens up once you start treating population dynamics mathematically.
replies(5): >>43676549 #>>43676659 #>>43676710 #>>43682868 #>>43694160 #
1. waveBidder ◴[13 Apr 25 23:34 UTC] No.43676659[source]▶
on the one hand, yes ecology and math bio is cool. On the other, the demographic transition does not fall out of these models whatsoever. Humans decided to do something very weird for whatever reason.
replies(2): >>43677005 #>>43681293 #
2. Kim_Bruning ◴[14 Apr 25 00:38 UTC] No.43677005[source]▶
The actual population size during demographic transition looks very logistic-y. You'd be forgiven for thinking Verhulst applies. (though K is very much an empirical constant in that case, since you can't easily predict it from anything I don't think.)
replies(1): >>43681328 #
3. thatnerd ◴[14 Apr 25 13:53 UTC] No.43681293[source]▶
Yeah the demographic transition is something nobody predicted (afaik). On the other hand, LTG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth) is a neo-Malthusian prediction that seems to match early data, and a surprising number of people revisit it and find its conclusions seem to hold. We'll be finding out around 2040, give or take. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
4. thatnerd ◴[14 Apr 25 13:56 UTC] No.43681328[source]▶
I think the demographic transition overshoot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition#Stage_f...) we see is unexpected though.