I’m trying to reconcile claims about continued population growth with what we often see in natural systems, where populations tend to move toward some form of equilibrium over time.

In ecology, for example, predator–prey dynamics (like deer and wolves) create feedback loops that prevent indefinite growth. While humans obviously don’t follow the same biological constraints, it seems we do have our own balancing mechanisms—economic, social, and cultural.  As well as human caused climate change/pollution can also be affecting the ability for women to become pregnant?

For instance, in many developed countries, declining fertility rates suggest that as societies become more urbanized, educated, and economically stable, population growth slows or even reverses. That looks less like “explosive growth indefinitely” and more like a transition toward stabilization.

So my question is:
To what extent do EA models account for these kinds of equilibrium dynamics—especially demographic transitions and declining birth rates?
And under what assumptions would continued large-scale growth still hold?

We are matter and we really matter.  It is mind blowing to me that "there will be a million future people for every person alive today".  We are here now doing the things we are doing due to actions taken by our ancestors thousands of years ago.  The fact that we (a subset of humans) are here reading articles from EA and 80,000 hours is something that I'm grateful for and I want to spread the word about why we need to think of future people.

I went to this site and attempted to click on the Non-trivial privacy policy: https://archive.non-trivial.org/privacy-policy and got the "this site can't be reached" message.

There is a moral hazard in treating refuges—whether they are high-tech bunkers or colonies in Mars/Moon—as one of the biosecurity projects to address existential risk. We risk decoupling the interests of the global elite from the survival of the general population. If the wealthy can afford a 'way out,' the collective incentive to solve existential threats on Earth from engineered pandemics or AI misalignment is weakened. We should be investing in 'public good' safety measures, not private lifeboats.

I found the 80,000 Hours data on anthropogenic risks particularly striking when compared to "common" low-probability events.

Specifically, the fact that a 100-year consistent play of the 6/49 lottery yields odds of 1 in 1,300 to win the jackpot makes the 1 in 10 estimate for unaligned AI or 1 in 30 for engineered pandemics feel much more real. Yet we dream about winning the lottery and not focus on a negative risk that is likely to happen during our lifetime.

The spending table also highlights a massive gap in neglectedness was also shocking to me:

• The fact that luxury goods spending ($1.3T) nearly matches total Global R&D ($1.5T) suggests a massive misallocation of time/talent and financial resources.
• Comparing Musk's net worth (approx. $200B–$250B) to the global climate spend (>$300B) illustrates how concentrated the power to influence has become.

Securing our future is the ultimate multi-generational project. My personal drive comes from wanting to leave a stable legacy for the next generation (my daughther and her children), but we cannot afford to treat AI safety or pandemic prevention as 'problems for the youth' to solve later. 

We need to bridge the gap between the emerging talent in the Effective Altruism community and the established leadership of Millenials, Gen X and Boomers. Solving 1-in-10 risks requires a 'total talent' approach that spans every age group and professional background.

I have a question:  does anyone know of research—particularly within the EA space—on how rising pet ownership (cats/dogs) may influence total meat consumption or demand for animal products?

This is a great video—I think it would have been especially useful to watch at the beginning of the Intro to EA course. It gives a clear overview of how effective altruism emerged and highlights the contributions of Toby Ord and Will MacAskill.

Prior to starting the Intro to EA course, I donated more with emotion. With a mindset that charity begins at home and donated to local charities (e.g. homeless shelters).  This was a problem that I would actually see day-to-day on the streets. Upon reading this article, I see that our sales and income taxes are a "mandatory local donation" and that my voluntary donations do not marginally impact homelessness as the government already has a budget allocated to address homelessness and affordable housing.  This article has "opened" my eyes to understanding that my voluntary donations would have more of an impact elsewhere.