Stellaris 2.2, Thomas Malthus and Thanos

[Agamemnic]

What do these three have in common? They all share the world view that economic resources are finite but that population growth is linear/exponential; and hence economic collapse inevitable.

Of course, this is all nonsense (bar the finite resources). History shows that populations self-regulate their growth over time as they develop.

So the problem with Stellaris' new take on population growth and economic resources:

1. It's entirely unrealistic as above
2. Removes all sense of accomplishment in 'finishing' a planet as before
3. ...instead, the player is rewarded with unending pop growth leading to unemployment, lack of housing and instability.
4. Late mid-game the excess pop becomes OP because you can now just insta-transfer pops to new colonies
5. ...and the downside to this is the tedious micro and button clicking of scrolling through planets and transferring the excess pops (just like the tedium of building upgrades pre-2.2)
6. More generally, there's the instability of pops transferring to new jobs once a new building comes online. Up till mid-game players have very little sense of their stable economic power because things are popping all over the place with pops transferring. This whack-a-mole economics coupled with the soul-crushingly low pop growth makes the early game an unbearable grind

Possible solutions?

• Pop growth should slow then halt at a certain level of planetary development taking into account unemployment and lack of housing (as is the case IRL ...broadly)
• For empires without migration controls, faster emigration to planets with excess jobs (can add a whole suite of edicts, policies, traditions etc to this mechanic)
• For empires with migration controls, add an automated feature for transferring excess pops. Solely for QOL
• At least give us a slider for pop growth. I'm not in the majority on this one but this new growth grind is killing me. Literally only playing hives and xenophobes cos without the growth bonus I'll kill myself.
• [edit} final idea, new buildings shouldn't 'steal' pops away from other jobs. Perhaps give players the choice on where the new pops will come from via policies?

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

To be fair, the assumptions and models behind a few of Stellaris's gameplay mechanics introduced in the new update are unrealistic and I would argue bad for gameplay.

 

[Thinkamancer]

Populations do self-regulate, but it isn't pretty nor clean. Population growth slows by increased infant mortality in times of scarcity, increase of crime/murders from economic strain, suicides from economic despair, or, outside of civilization, prey populations decrease by a corresponding boom in predators, which reduce prey populations and then starve.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

Populations do self-regulate, but it isn't pretty nor clean. Population growth slows by increased infant mortality in times of scarcity, increase of crime/murders from economic strain, suicides from economic despair, or, outside of civilization, prey populations decrease by a corresponding boom in predators, which reduce prey populations and then starve.

Alternatively populations of people self regulate by putting more focus on women's contraception?

It's strange that the Malthusian viewpoint takes such precedence.

Particularly given this from ScienceDaily,

In a study to be published in the Nov. 23 issue of Nature, the researchers found that when arctic ground squirrel populations reached the maximum limit the environment could support, the females severely reduced reproduction and most died over winter during hibernation, thus controlling the population.

"No population of organisms increases without limit. The central question in population ecology is what regulates their numbers. And the answer often is: the actions of the populations themselves," says Rudy Boonstra, a professor of zoology in the Division of Life Sciences at the University of Toronto at Scarborough and co-author of the paper. "The populations themselves are critical to preventing unlimited growth. There are obviously other processes going on - predators and things like that - but the regulation that occurs in arctic ground squirrels is mainly dictated by the number of fellow squirrels that are around it."

"Animals can change their reproductive output depending on certain environmental conditions. And one of those environmental conditions is population density," notes Tim Karels, lead author of the paper who conducted the research as part of his PhD thesis at U of T. "So if you have lots of neighbours and you're competing for the same food, it can lower reproduction. And that's what we saw. At very high population densities, female ground squirrels basically shut down their reproduction, and that was done in order to sustain their own survival. When conditions were better, they would start reproducing again."

The arctic ground squirrel lives in the tundra, alpine and forested regions of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and Alaska and hibernates over winter. Karels conducted the research between the spring of 1996 and spring of 1998 at the Arctic Institute Base at Kluane Lake, about 200 km west of Whitehorse.

Karels and Boonstra took groups of arctic ground squirrels that lived under certain conditions - one group was protected from predators via an electric fence, another was provided with food in the form of rabbit pellets, a third group was both protected from predators and given food, and the last served as the control group. In the spring of 1996, the food and protection were cut off to see how the squirrel populations from these experimental groups would respond.

"In high density populations - which resulted when the squirrels had both protection and food - the first thing we noticed is that females stopped reproducing. They got pregnant but terminated reproduction somewhere between pregnancy and when the babies should have appeared above ground after weaning," says Karels.

The researchers believe the female squirrels shut down reproduction in order to increase their own chance of survival. The cost of reproduction is extraordinarily high, they say, since the squirrel must provide nutrients for itself as well as a litter. Without food provided by the researchers, the squirrels had to forage as they would in their natural habitat.

Karels and Boonstra found that certain types of plants that normally feed the squirrels were completely consumed in 1996. Although the squirrels looked relatively healthy as winter came, the researchers were surprised to find that 93 per cent in the highest density population died that first winter. They believe that the types of food needed to sustain certain types of body fat throughout the winter were insufficient for the dense populations.

This study was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

 

[Thinkamancer]

That's an option in Stellaris. It hasn't been an effective option for most populations, historically, since widespread effective contraception is quite new, and social acceptance of it is newer still.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

That's an option in Stellaris. It hasn't been an effective option for most populations, historically, since widespread effective contraception is quite new, and social acceptance of it is newer still.

Really? Do you pay attention to current affairs at all? Most populations in the West have birthrates less than the replacement rate of the population because of the choices families are making. As I added to the previous post, this behaviour is even evident in Canadian squirrels.

 

[Aed]

History shows that populations self-regulate their growth over time as they develop.

There is still a lot of debate about this and it is not as certain as you think it is. There is a lot of evidence pointing to populations being semi-chaotic in nature, with equilibria sometimes drastically changing even after temporary changes to the environment.

 

[Agamemnic]

Populations do self-regulate, but it isn't pretty nor clean. Population growth slows by increased infant mortality in times of scarcity, increase of crime/murders from economic strain, suicides from economic despair, or, outside of civilisation, prey populations decrease by a corresponding boom in predators, which reduce prey populations and then starve.

Perhaps I'm missing your context but for modern civilisation the evidence points more towards clean and pretty. We started with high birth and death rates. Death rates fell primarily due to better healthcare. Birth rates stayed high leading to a population boom but then declined primarily out of choice. Textbook demographic transition (if I recall). Same trend is being experienced even by less developed economies. The empirical evidence on this is quite overwhelming.

Things like famines, natural disasters, wars etc interrupt the trend but empirically, the long term trend towards slower pop growth is quite pretty. Certainly prettier for us than our nomadic ancestors.

 

[Thinkamancer]

I notice that I am confused. That squirrel thing seems beyond odd, and most importantly, at odds with evolutionary dynamics. Can you please link me to the original article?

Yes, effective, socially encouraged contraception is a thing we have. That's why I said "historically". But if we're talking population dynamics in general, don't you think we should take history into account?

And if the squirrel thing is true, which still seems unlikely to me, would you call that "pretty" or "clean"? Isn't it the exact equivalent of the reduced fertility of malnourished women, coupled with decreased odds of surviving winter in times of scarcity?

To be clear, what seems unlikely is the "voluntary" bit implied. It sounds like stress and scarcity to me.

 

[Thinkamancer]

Perhaps I'm missing your context but for modern civilisation the evidence points more towards clean and pretty. We started with high birth and death rates. Death rates fell primarily due to better healthcare. Birth rates stayed high leading to a population boom but then declined primarily out of choice. Textbook demographic transition (if I recall). Same trend is being experienced even by less developed economies. The empirical evidence on this is quite overwhelming.

Things like famines, natural disasters, wars etc interrupt the trend but empirically, the long term trend towards slower pop growth is quite pretty. Certainly prettier for us than our nomadic ancestors.

"Recently" v "historically"/"in nature". My view is simply that the latter should be given far more weight when speaking generally.

 

[Peace Weaver]

I’ve never understood how people can claim that overpopulation is a myth because populations will self regulate when they get too large. It’s like saying fire isn’t dangerous, because it eventually burns itself out.

Even if the “regulation” is seemingly by choice (ie. human contraception) those “choices” are still the result of social and economic stresses.

 

[Matoro_TBS]

But... you can stop the growth, if you can't bear the micro of resettling every new pop constantly. Isn't that basically what it means for population to self-regulate - you just have control of it, because it's game and it's more fun you have control about these things. You can stop the population on its optimum levels and never look at the planet any more.

 

[Thinkamancer]

I’ve never understood how people can claim that overpopulation is a myth because populations will self regulate when they get too large. It’s like saying fire isn’t dangerous, because it eventually burns itself out.

Even if the “regulation” is seemingly by choice (ie. human contraception) those “choices” are still the result of social and economic stresses.

Very well put

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

What do people want from Stellaris?
A game of Galactic intrigue and politicking paired with exploration of future science, philosophy, and mysticism?

Or a game of rote pop micromanagement?

At the moment we have too much of the latter, and not enough of the former.

+ Designing pops is fun.
+ Pops interacting with one another according to their differences is interesting.
- Micromanaging pops; their growth, disposition, job assignment, happiness, criminality, productivity, etc is tediously repetitive because the problems faced during the development of one planet are much the same as every other planet.

Stellaris' management aspects should be about macroeconomics, not microeconomics.

 

[zukodark]

"Recently" v "historically"/"in nature". My view is simply that the latter should be given far more weight when speaking generally.

I would disagree - Stellaris deals with interstellar empires, not primitive animals or medieval humans. Thus I'd say sociology/psychology would be a greater factor when it comes to growth than simple biology.

The statistics overwhelmingly say that the birth rates are lower in developed countries and higher in developing countries. Contraception and more knowledge around sexuality is one reason for lowered this. Another can be seen as a reduced demand for children - they're a source of work in undeveloped countries, but are merely an expense in developed countries. A focus on women's rights and children's rights is a cultural reason for reduced growth rate, since getting children now depends more on what everyone in the family wants and needs, instead of just the head.

In general birth rates tend to match death rates over time, meaning the highest growth rates happen specifically in developing countries. I think that's the idea we should pursue with Stellaris. Developing colonies should have higher growth rates. People would notice how developing the colony would be beneficial to them and their safety, since new colonies actually have a shortage of people while also having tons of free resources.

So what should Stellaris change? Exactly what the OP said.

 

[zukodark]

What do people want from Stellaris?
A game of Galactic intrigue and politicking paired with exploration of future science, philosophy, and mysticism?

Or a game of rote pop micromanagement?

At the moment we have too much of the latter, and not enough of the former.

+ Designing pops is fun.
+ Pops interacting with one another according to their differences is interesting.
- Micromanaging pops; their growth, disposition, job assignment, happiness, criminality, productivity, etc is tediously repetitive as the problems faced during the development of one planet are much the same as every other planet.

Stellaris' management aspects should be about macroeconomics, not microeconomics.

You currently don't actually micro pops though... With the exception of people trying to. Having a background system like we have now is great. What we need to change regarding micromanagement, is not a fundamental change. It is smaller changes to growth and emigration so pops don't overcrowd and overpopulate the jobs you have created so much, and better if still optional sector mechanics. I really don't see why we are not allowed to set a monthly fund to sectors.

 

[SirAlexius]

What do people want from Stellaris?

It seems clear that what people really want is a computational model of evolutionary dynamics that takes into account the latest scientific findings and fits real world population data.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

I notice that I am confused. That squirrel thing seems beyond odd, and most importantly, at odds with evolutionary dynamics. Can you please link me to the original article?

This forum has got strict about external links and so I am not comfortable linking it in case the mods delete the post. It is easily found through Google, as are similar articles.

Reproduction is energetically and nutritionally expensive. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective not to waste energy or nutrients reproducing when the environment won't support the new population.

Yes, effective, socially encouraged contraception is a thing we have. That's why I said "historically". But if we're talking population dynamics in general, don't you think we should take history into account?

And if the squirrel thing is true, which still seems unlikely to me, would you call that "pretty" or "clean"? Isn't it the exact equivalent of the reduced fertility of malnourished women, coupled with decreased odds of surviving winter in times of scarcity?

To be clear, what seems unlikely is the "voluntary" bit implied. It sounds like stress and scarcity to me.

If you take history into account then that
It is not, however, a Malthusian catastrophe, and that is what regulation looks like. Yes the anthropomorphism or attribution of intent is probably misplaced.

Those social contraceptives have existed throughout our history however.

I’ve never understood how people can claim that overpopulation is a myth because populations will self regulate when they get too large. It’s like saying fire isn’t dangerous, because it eventually burns itself out.

Even if the “regulation” is seemingly by choice (ie. human contraception) those “choices” are still the result of social and economic stresses.

People aren't claiming overpopulation is a myth, but that population growth which outstrips resource availability until a critical point where the population collapses, referred to as a Malthusian Catastrophe, is a myth.

 

[Agamemnic]

But... you can stop the growth, if you can't bear the micro of resettling every new pop constantly. Isn't that basically what it means for population to self-regulate - you just have control of it, because it's game and it's more fun you have control about these things. You can stop the population on its optimum levels and never look at the planet any more.

You are correct. However, at +20/30 planets, having to mentally keep track of which colonies are growing and managing that is quite tedious. Say for example a colony gets overcrowded; you limit pop growth. But then you get a building upgrade tech; now you have to manually allow pop growth and remember to stop pop growth again once those jobs are filled. It's micro purgatory.

 

[Peace Weaver]

People aren't claiming overpopulation is a myth, but that population growth which outstrips resource availability until a critical point where the population collapses, referred to as a Malthusian Catastrophe, is a myth.

But if you accept that there are stresses that cause a population to “regulate” when it surpasses capacity you have to also accept that those same stresses hold the potential for catastrophe if not heeded. In actuality, they are a small catastrophe in and of themselves, requiring a certain way of life to end.