• presoak@lazysoci.alOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I guess things could be better if we avoided saturation.

    Through death, disaster, expanding population or new frontiers

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Market saturation…

      The theory of natural limits states: “Every product or service has a natural consumption level. We just don’t know what it is until we launch it, distribute it, and promote it for a generation’s time (20 years or more) after which further investment to expand the universe beyond normal limits can be a futile exercise.” —Thomas G. Osenton, economist

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_saturation

      Corps want more people, not less. Because people are potential customers, or cheap labor. Even if neither, their existence as extra unneeded labor reduces the price of labor.

      You seem to have been talking about “population saturation” which I get the meaning of but I’m not sure it’s a thing.

      • presoak@lazysoci.alOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Well I figured if you create more people then you create more customers. And with new frontiers comes new opportunities to dump product into taming that frontier (thus more sales of product). And if people die then the birthrate fills the hole and delivers new customers. And disasters function much like new frontiers.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Well, yeah, we didn’t evolve to occupy a place, we kept getting wiped and having to start over. While something like a Greenland shark goes 50 years before it can reproduce.

          We evolved as prey, but we don’t have any predators left. So there’s nothing to control our population.

          But that’s way off topic