Population dynamics of humans and other animals

Abstract

Human population dynamics, at least until the past century, have probably been governed by homeostasis and in this resembled those of other animals. Because human population homeostasis was probably substantially weaker than among large mammals, its operation has been less obvious. Nonetheless, the empirical evidence for advanced agriculturalists is compelling. Unlike animals, the human population has tended toward equilibria that have been tending upward at an accelerating rate. The acceleration might reflect long-run positive feedback between density and technological progress, as Boserup has suggested. Because homeostasis was weak, its role in shorter run historical explantation is limited; its force was gentle and easily overwhelmed by other particular influences. Malthusian oscillation, in the sense of distinctive medium-run dynamics arising from homeostasis, probably did not occur. And because homeostasis was weak, density dependence can in principle explain only a minute proportion of the annual variation in population growth rates. Yet homeostasis plays an essential role in demographic theory. Without it, we are incapable of explaining population size and change over time except by recounting a mindless chronology of events back to the beginning of humanity--whenever that was. Without it, we cannot explain the response of population growth to economic growth. Without it, we cannot explain recovery from catastrophe or the rapid natural increase in many frontier regions. Without it, we cannot properly analyze the influence of climatic variation and other partially density-independent factors. Our basic understanding of human history requires a grasp of what homeostasis can explain and what it cannot. A homeostatic approach to population dynamics also leads to questions about the roles of reproductive norms and institutions, not just whether they encourage high or low fertility, but whether they make natural increase responsive to resource abundance. And if they do, whether they strike the balance of population and the means of subsistence at a relatively prosperous or impoverished level. Such considerations may contribute to an understanding of broad preindustrial differences among the regions of the world in densities, average levels of vital rates, and living standards--which was very much how Malthus viewed the matter. Ordinary homeostatic tendencies essentially vanish in the course of economic development, and they were probably all but gone from much of Europe by the end of the 19th century.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)