The Population Bust(foreignaffairs.com)
foreignaffairs.com
The Population Bust
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2019-08-12/population-bust?spJobID=1701558439&spMailingID=60132624&spReportId=MTcwMTU1ODQzOQS2&spUserID=NTA0ODQwNzg0NDcS1&sp_mid=60132624&sp_rid=cm9iZXJ0QHRoZWJyb3dzZXIuY29tS0&utm_campaign=so_2019&utm_content=20190813&utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=press_release
180 comments
Whales, and supersized cargo ships, are both enabled by much the same dynamics:
- Widely separated, highly-beneficial, feeding grounds.
- Exceedingly efficient onboarding systems.
- No credible predators.
This enables long hull shapes, high speeds, few resources devoted to defence, and exceptionally efficient metabolisms.
A blue whale eats 8,000 - 16,000 kg/day of krill, or 7-15 million calories. That's a continuous energy output of 350 - 700 kW, or about 500 - 1,000 horsepower.
Cargo ships, whether liquid, bulk ore, or container, load and unload tremendous amounts of cargo quickly (the Iranian tanker in the news today carries 2.1 million barrels of oil, a $115 million cargo, which it can load or unload in a matter of hours).
In a world where ships cannot simply sail direct routes to destinations, must detect and evade, or defend against assaults, or risk capture or loss, transport logistics will become vastly more complex, and costs far greater.
The SS Great Eastern, the first large steamship, launched in 1859, still carried cannon on her decks:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deck_of_the_%27Great_Ea...
- Widely separated, highly-beneficial, feeding grounds.
- Exceedingly efficient onboarding systems.
- No credible predators.
This enables long hull shapes, high speeds, few resources devoted to defence, and exceptionally efficient metabolisms.
A blue whale eats 8,000 - 16,000 kg/day of krill, or 7-15 million calories. That's a continuous energy output of 350 - 700 kW, or about 500 - 1,000 horsepower.
Cargo ships, whether liquid, bulk ore, or container, load and unload tremendous amounts of cargo quickly (the Iranian tanker in the news today carries 2.1 million barrels of oil, a $115 million cargo, which it can load or unload in a matter of hours).
In a world where ships cannot simply sail direct routes to destinations, must detect and evade, or defend against assaults, or risk capture or loss, transport logistics will become vastly more complex, and costs far greater.
The SS Great Eastern, the first large steamship, launched in 1859, still carried cannon on her decks:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deck_of_the_%27Great_Ea...
I find it unlikely that piracy and government navies imposing tolls on shipping lanes will return without a US Navy. The Petrodollar is dependent on the US Navy, but that is it.
Very few militaries have modernized, until recently, if the Falklands War occurred again, the British and the Argentines would be largely using the same weapons and equipment (partly from deliveries of the F-35), the greatest pressure on tyrants is access to their Swiss bank accounts, or whatever many apartments they own through shell companies in New York or London.
Very few militaries have modernized, until recently, if the Falklands War occurred again, the British and the Argentines would be largely using the same weapons and equipment (partly from deliveries of the F-35), the greatest pressure on tyrants is access to their Swiss bank accounts, or whatever many apartments they own through shell companies in New York or London.
I think piracy is highly likely without a strong unified (not necessarily American) naval presence. It wouldn't be Somalian pirates. I'd guess it'd look more like the piracy of the 17th and 18th century where state-sponsored individuals create profit and havoc from interference with competing countries.
Shipping fragmentation also seems likely without a strong global navy. As you mention, the Petrodollar is dependent on the US Navy. The collapse or hampering of energy trade alone would launch the world into a great depression.
I'm not sure how you're trying to relate the modernization of militaries. From my understanding, the USA exports old versions of our military technology to many allies.
Shipping fragmentation also seems likely without a strong global navy. As you mention, the Petrodollar is dependent on the US Navy. The collapse or hampering of energy trade alone would launch the world into a great depression.
I'm not sure how you're trying to relate the modernization of militaries. From my understanding, the USA exports old versions of our military technology to many allies.
It requires very little equipment to fight a future war against pirates? Or even disorganized militia groups acting as pirates?
The US did more to hamper oil prices by invading Iraq than anything else.
The US did more to hamper oil prices by invading Iraq than anything else.
It would require enormous resources to combat pirates. I'd look at the comment above about whales & efficiency as a better explanation than I can provide. Piracy would be more like terrorism than a traditional war. Extremely asymmetric costs & predictability.
As for oil prices, the Iraqi war did disrupt Iraqi oil production for about a year. In 2004, oil production reached pre-war levels and has been growing steadily since.
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/iraq/crude-oil-product...
As for oil prices, the Iraqi war did disrupt Iraqi oil production for about a year. In 2004, oil production reached pre-war levels and has been growing steadily since.
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/iraq/crude-oil-product...
There is essentially nothing of the Falkland's era still in use by British forces. Let's see: rifles, uniforms, destroyers, frigates, aircraft carriers, aircraft, helicopters, missile systems all replaced since then, mainly 21st century. Significant lessons - both in the UK and US - were taken from the frigates hit in the Falklands. Ship design, weapon fit, and uniform materials were changed as a result.
Only thing I can think of from the 80s, is some of the minesweepers, and those were commissioned after the Falklands.
Only thing I can think of from the 80s, is some of the minesweepers, and those were commissioned after the Falklands.
The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only.
-- Norman Borlaug, "Father of the Green Revolution", Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture. December 11, 1970
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1970/borlaug/lecture...
-- Norman Borlaug, "Father of the Green Revolution", Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture. December 11, 1970
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1970/borlaug/lecture...
Soon it won't matter what the population is, automation will sweep through all industries, what you see today in automation is what people 30 years ago see in computers - slow, cumbersome, expensive. That's going to change.
It's only worth automating something if there's enough demand to justify the investment in the automation process. If population declines, we may actually see less automation for some things... ...and therefore cost increases.
OTOH, automation enables things that fundamentally aren't possible with any number of humans, due to economics. If we find ways to lower the cost of automation itself, lovely things can happen.
Computers are part of automation, just like chainsaws. It's not a new phenomena. It's been sweeping through all industries the whole time.
The thing is, efficiency unveils new possibilities, and possibilities induce demand, consumption. We are much more efficient than 10 years ago, but also consume at a much faster pace.
The thing is, efficiency unveils new possibilities, and possibilities induce demand, consumption. We are much more efficient than 10 years ago, but also consume at a much faster pace.
Past patterns are not always a sufficient predictor of future patterns. Some patterns may even last for hundreds or thousands of years, then disappear due to technological or cultural changes. As Yogi Berra said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
They said this 30+ years ago too, it's still not there.
As it turns out, often the opex for the people is still cheaper than the capex plus opex for the robot.
As it turns out, often the opex for the people is still cheaper than the capex plus opex for the robot.
Yes, if all goes well. And if global climate change doesn't crash technological society.
> If the world ahead has fewer people, will there be any real economic growth?
Of course there will. As long as per capita usage of energy and stuff increases faster than population decreases. Basically this will continue the concentration of wealth ~indefinitely.
I mean, consider Vernor Vinge's Marooned in Realtime. Even the poorest people consume as much as many nations do now.
> If the world ahead has fewer people, will there be any real economic growth?
Of course there will. As long as per capita usage of energy and stuff increases faster than population decreases. Basically this will continue the concentration of wealth ~indefinitely.
I mean, consider Vernor Vinge's Marooned in Realtime. Even the poorest people consume as much as many nations do now.
What's the point of automating everything if there are no more people? I think ultimately people are the source of happiness for people. Material things are just an intermediary in the happiness exchange. So, if we get rid of people to replace them with material things we will become less happy.
Plus, it isn't obvious that all the important stuff can be automated.
Plus, it isn't obvious that all the important stuff can be automated.
I find my joy in people is inversely related to their quantity. If I'm hiking a sparsely populated trail, then anyone I meet is worth a conversation. If I'm on a crowded subway, I do my best to shut everyone out. At a minimum, I think joy is conserved. But I suspect it would actually increase if there were fewer people (up to a point).
As counter anecdata, my perception is people who come from large families and populous regions that are neighborly are much happier and friendlier than those who keep to themselves or ignore those around them.
> So, if we get rid of people to replace them with material things we will become less happy.
No. People who don't exist don't experience anything.
And there are plenty of people who are born and who as adults wish they had never been, and a lot of us who are still ok with it but not very excited are still biased since we do exist. This is not a problem for those who are never born. They don't become people who can feel pain and suffering.
There are plenty of people. I really doubt that an increase in people is in itself a reason for increased happiness. Noone is arguing for exterminating parts of the not needed population because of automation.
No. People who don't exist don't experience anything.
And there are plenty of people who are born and who as adults wish they had never been, and a lot of us who are still ok with it but not very excited are still biased since we do exist. This is not a problem for those who are never born. They don't become people who can feel pain and suffering.
There are plenty of people. I really doubt that an increase in people is in itself a reason for increased happiness. Noone is arguing for exterminating parts of the not needed population because of automation.
What if the value of someone's life is independent of their own subjective perception of their own value? Many people, tragically, view themselves as valueless, due to many factors, but that's a reason to boost their self value, not a reason to give into their misperception of self.
If a person's body is unhealthy, we don't encourage them towards greater unhealthiness, but rather health. The same with mental health. We should encourage mentally healthy perspectives, which includes self value.
If a person's body is unhealthy, we don't encourage them towards greater unhealthiness, but rather health. The same with mental health. We should encourage mentally healthy perspectives, which includes self value.
Why does it follow that efficient automation will cause population levels to not matter?
I think the idea is that humanity is basically a pyramid scheme. It takes more and more people to cover the debts and improve the world they received from the previous generations. I don't particularly agree with this viewpoint.
Who's debts are the world's population covering? Are we in hoc to Mars?!
Here are a few debts we have:
- Governmental fiscal debt
- Global climate change
- Societal debt. By this I mean, the previous generation left an unstable society at risk of collapse for the next generation. I would imagine a person born in 1920 would feel this way. As a programmer, I would frame this as "tech" debt for our social institutions.
- Governmental fiscal debt
- Global climate change
- Societal debt. By this I mean, the previous generation left an unstable society at risk of collapse for the next generation. I would imagine a person born in 1920 would feel this way. As a programmer, I would frame this as "tech" debt for our social institutions.
Relying on a larger and larger population to keep supporting endless growth is not sustainable. I know this is unpopular, but: We need to find a way to sustainably live on this planet with a reasonably sized population.
People keep talking about how the next generation needs to support all the debt and extravagances of the past generations but this unethical. the next generation was born without first being asked whether they want to take care of so many existing people. finding a sustainable solution would be both more practical and ethical
People keep talking about how the next generation needs to support all the debt and extravagances of the past generations but this unethical. the next generation was born without first being asked whether they want to take care of so many existing people. finding a sustainable solution would be both more practical and ethical
> Relying on a larger and larger population to keep supporting endless growth
The article talks about "growth" as though it has to be absolute growth, but it doesn't; it only needs to be per capita growth. If the population is shrinking, absolute growth can be negative but per capita growth can still be positive (all that's necessary is that the rate of absolute decline of the economy is less than the rate of decline of population). In other words, per capita productivity just needs to increase. Which it has been at least since the industrial revolution.
The article talks about "growth" as though it has to be absolute growth, but it doesn't; it only needs to be per capita growth. If the population is shrinking, absolute growth can be negative but per capita growth can still be positive (all that's necessary is that the rate of absolute decline of the economy is less than the rate of decline of population). In other words, per capita productivity just needs to increase. Which it has been at least since the industrial revolution.
Per capital growth is also not sufficient. Such a metric could easily be achieved by slowly reducing the population to 1. I might propose some analog of total output minus population growth as a better metric.
> Per capital growth is also not sufficient. Such a metric could easily be achieved by slowly reducing the population to 1
Only if the 1 person can continue to increase their productivity with nobody else to trade with, which is absurd. Increasing productivity comes from specialization and trade.
Only if the 1 person can continue to increase their productivity with nobody else to trade with, which is absurd. Increasing productivity comes from specialization and trade.
You can have economic growth without growing population or resource consumption. Either way, that still doesn’t address the problems of population decline.
You can, to an extent. There’s a limit to what one person can buy or contribute to an economy. It’s easier to sell 2 TVs to two people than it is 2 TVs to one person.
Productivity increases though, don't rely on population, and are the actual driver of economic growth. Growth due to population increase is the baseline rate and shouldn't count because people aren't more prosperous per-capita.
Productivity increases due to automation go to the owners of capital. Many individual’s productivity is not going up, therefore they are worth less.
That’s actually not true. The Baumol cost disease means that people who are not actually more productive in their current roles (eg orchestral clarinetists) still make more money because of productivity growth elsewhere. You couldn’t possibly pay an orchestral clarinetist as much today as you did in 1800 because they’d just quit and do literally anything else for a living. You have to pay them more.
On a scale from 1800 to now, we are all better off. But if you look at the past 20 years in the us, we are clearly not benefiting all of society. Arguing that the avg clarinetist is slightly better off today compared to 1970 doesn't account for the fact that many many other people haven't had an increase, but they've had a decrease in their standard of living.
I find this claim rather incredible, if only because of the set of things that hadn’t even been invented in 1970, which nonetheless everybody seems to have today.
> Productivity increases due to automation go to the owners of capital.
That is only true if there is a monopoly on automation, which there generally isn't. In which case the productivity increases go into lower prices, which result in greater demand for whatever is still scarce.
That can be capital owners (e.g. land), but it can also be skilled labor or literally anything else which is in demand and people choose to spend the money on that they had saved from the lower prices driven by automation.
That is only true if there is a monopoly on automation, which there generally isn't. In which case the productivity increases go into lower prices, which result in greater demand for whatever is still scarce.
That can be capital owners (e.g. land), but it can also be skilled labor or literally anything else which is in demand and people choose to spend the money on that they had saved from the lower prices driven by automation.
Whatever the reasoning, data shows wealth and income gaps increasing, and the ones with capital are the on the winning side.
That has nothing to do with automation and everything to do with low interest rates. When interest rates are low, people borrow more money and bid up the prices of capital assets.
One important insight of mainstream economics is the idea of "economies of scale" and "specialization," both of which improve productivity and both of which rely in part on a larger population or increased trade. Once you've globalized trade, you're limited by population.
This is especially true for things somewhere between niche and commodity: it's not worth automating something if you're not producing enough of them to justify the capital cost of the automation equipment. It's not worth reusing your rockets if you're only launching like 3 satellites per year (still have to keep the factory open and practiced). This is why Moore's Law has slowed: tech has tapped basically the entire world's population (more than 5 billion people have mobile devices now); there aren't vast new groups of consumers to sell to any more, so the investment in the next step is not worth it like it was before.
In short, more humans actually increases the per-person productivity.
This is especially true for things somewhere between niche and commodity: it's not worth automating something if you're not producing enough of them to justify the capital cost of the automation equipment. It's not worth reusing your rockets if you're only launching like 3 satellites per year (still have to keep the factory open and practiced). This is why Moore's Law has slowed: tech has tapped basically the entire world's population (more than 5 billion people have mobile devices now); there aren't vast new groups of consumers to sell to any more, so the investment in the next step is not worth it like it was before.
In short, more humans actually increases the per-person productivity.
In some cases it may indeed be worth automating even when producing at low volumes:
* data mining or AI can analyze data sets better than all the humans you could possibly muster, data sets that can illuminate low volume but high impact decision making (new product need, safety critical alerts, incoming asteroids) * robot surgical devices can perform more consistently (possibly higher efficacy) which is highly valuable even for low volume surgeries * automated cars will be demonstrably safer even if overall demand for transportation declines * demand for more specialized and lifelong education will increase even if the number of students decreases (career changes, working retirements, self-improvement, etc) * automated solutions to climate change remediation (carbon sequestration, planting trees, etc) will likely scale well beyond manual labor options in an aging shrinking population and will be needed generations after the damage levels off * space exploration requires automation even for just a single mission, and even a smaller population will likely continue to explore the solar system
I think imagination and adaptation will manage ok. In fact I would rather see capital deployed to less consumption by volume and more high value consumption. Would you rather eat a farm-to-table organic microgreens salad for dinner, or a bag of Wonder Bread?
* data mining or AI can analyze data sets better than all the humans you could possibly muster, data sets that can illuminate low volume but high impact decision making (new product need, safety critical alerts, incoming asteroids) * robot surgical devices can perform more consistently (possibly higher efficacy) which is highly valuable even for low volume surgeries * automated cars will be demonstrably safer even if overall demand for transportation declines * demand for more specialized and lifelong education will increase even if the number of students decreases (career changes, working retirements, self-improvement, etc) * automated solutions to climate change remediation (carbon sequestration, planting trees, etc) will likely scale well beyond manual labor options in an aging shrinking population and will be needed generations after the damage levels off * space exploration requires automation even for just a single mission, and even a smaller population will likely continue to explore the solar system
I think imagination and adaptation will manage ok. In fact I would rather see capital deployed to less consumption by volume and more high value consumption. Would you rather eat a farm-to-table organic microgreens salad for dinner, or a bag of Wonder Bread?
Yeah but that one person can have 20 different streaming subscriptions for the TV, for example. Or they could have a really really awesome TV instead of a shitty one. Economic value is somewhat subjective; if people are willing to buy a billion dollars of hats for their video game avatar, that’s a billion dollars of economic activity.
They can. But there’s only so much TV they can sit down and watch until they start cancelling services they know they don’t use. Growth stops somewhere.
Let's say we have a population of 100 people living in caves, and all they have to entertain themselves is paint on rocks. Then, someone draws a picture on a leaf. Suddenly everyone is snapping those leaf pictures up. Next, someone sticks the leaves together into a book, and that's the next big thing. Finally, someone invents the leaf screen, that is constantly beaming new leafy picture shows into your personal cave. They can't make the leaf screens fast enough to keep up with demand!
So, with a constant population we still achieve economic growth.
So, with a constant population we still achieve economic growth.
Sure it is. It's only unsustainable if you restrict the population to a limited area (ie - Earth)
There may come a time when we don't NEED a larger population to support increasing specialization, but until then a broader population base is needed to foster growth in technology.
Not to mention that those 'one in a billion' history changing genius happen in larger numbers when we have more billions...
There may come a time when we don't NEED a larger population to support increasing specialization, but until then a broader population base is needed to foster growth in technology.
Not to mention that those 'one in a billion' history changing genius happen in larger numbers when we have more billions...
Exponential growth is unsustainable in a 3D universe with a finite speed of light. Space is not a magical savior
But we’re nowhere near the theoretical limits of our own solar system yet.
We're closer than most people think. Isaac Asimov's essay "The Power of Progression" from his monthly science column in the May 1960 issue of "The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction", and reprinted in the collect "The Stars in Their Courses" in 1971 [1], goes through the math for how long it would take to reach various population levels at the rate the population was growing at the time.
It was doubling every 47 years then. That's slowed down to about every 63 years currently, so the times to reach those levels would now be longer, but his original numbers are still instructive for how fast exponential growth can get away from you. Here they are.
• Suppose we populated the entire Earth to the density of Manhattan at noon on a typical working day, when it is at its highest density. By "entire Earth" that means covering every square meter of the surface, including the oceans, with people.
That would take 585 years.
• Suppose that every single star in our galaxy had 10 habitable planets with the same area as Earth, and that we could trivially expand to them. And suppose that there are another hundred billion galaxies with the same number of habitable planets as ours, that we can also expand to. Surely now we are set for billions of years, right?
Nope. That just takes 4200 years at the growth rate he used (doubling every 47 years).
• OK, suppose we don't limit ourselves to planets. We find some way to tap into hyperspace or something for energy, freeing us to use all the mass in the universe for human bodies. All the stars in all the galaxies converted to humans. Let's multiply the available mass by 100 to account for dust and debris and other interstellar and intergalactic matter.
It takes 6700 years to reach that level.
• He also looks at how long, given a population that consists just of humans and plants for the humans to eat, limited only by the amount of solar energy and the efficiency of photosynthesis, until we are at the limit. That's 624 years.
I've also seen a similar calculation that uses the volume of an average human and the speed of light. I had thought it was in that Asimov essay, but it isn't. That one asks when, if you were to take every human and pack them into the smallest sphere that could them all, would the radius of that sphere have to be increasing faster than the speed of light to accommodate population growth. I don't remember the answer, but I think it was somewhere in the several thousand years range.
There's no amount of even remotely plausible technological hand waving one can do to make a case that we could ever actually achieve any of the above, except maybe the "cover the Earth" one.
To convert the numbers above to other doubling intervals, just multiply by the doubling interval you want to use, and divide by the one Asimov used (47 years).
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Stars-Their-Courses-Isaac-Asimov/dp/0...
It was doubling every 47 years then. That's slowed down to about every 63 years currently, so the times to reach those levels would now be longer, but his original numbers are still instructive for how fast exponential growth can get away from you. Here they are.
• Suppose we populated the entire Earth to the density of Manhattan at noon on a typical working day, when it is at its highest density. By "entire Earth" that means covering every square meter of the surface, including the oceans, with people.
That would take 585 years.
• Suppose that every single star in our galaxy had 10 habitable planets with the same area as Earth, and that we could trivially expand to them. And suppose that there are another hundred billion galaxies with the same number of habitable planets as ours, that we can also expand to. Surely now we are set for billions of years, right?
Nope. That just takes 4200 years at the growth rate he used (doubling every 47 years).
• OK, suppose we don't limit ourselves to planets. We find some way to tap into hyperspace or something for energy, freeing us to use all the mass in the universe for human bodies. All the stars in all the galaxies converted to humans. Let's multiply the available mass by 100 to account for dust and debris and other interstellar and intergalactic matter.
It takes 6700 years to reach that level.
• He also looks at how long, given a population that consists just of humans and plants for the humans to eat, limited only by the amount of solar energy and the efficiency of photosynthesis, until we are at the limit. That's 624 years.
I've also seen a similar calculation that uses the volume of an average human and the speed of light. I had thought it was in that Asimov essay, but it isn't. That one asks when, if you were to take every human and pack them into the smallest sphere that could them all, would the radius of that sphere have to be increasing faster than the speed of light to accommodate population growth. I don't remember the answer, but I think it was somewhere in the several thousand years range.
There's no amount of even remotely plausible technological hand waving one can do to make a case that we could ever actually achieve any of the above, except maybe the "cover the Earth" one.
To convert the numbers above to other doubling intervals, just multiply by the doubling interval you want to use, and divide by the one Asimov used (47 years).
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Stars-Their-Courses-Isaac-Asimov/dp/0...
>That's slowed down to about every 63 years currently
The global fertility rate is 2.426, which is barely above the replacement rate. The population continues to grow primarily because the people who have already been born have good life expectancies. The UN forecasts that the population will reach a maximum of 10-12 billion by 2100, driven mainly by increasing life expectancy in the developed world. Key quote:
Two-thirds of the projected growth of the global population through 2050 will be driven by current age structures. It would occur even if childbearing in high-fertility countries today were to fall immediately to around two births per woman over a lifetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_momentum
https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Hig...
The global fertility rate is 2.426, which is barely above the replacement rate. The population continues to grow primarily because the people who have already been born have good life expectancies. The UN forecasts that the population will reach a maximum of 10-12 billion by 2100, driven mainly by increasing life expectancy in the developed world. Key quote:
Two-thirds of the projected growth of the global population through 2050 will be driven by current age structures. It would occur even if childbearing in high-fertility countries today were to fall immediately to around two births per woman over a lifetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_momentum
https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Hig...
Also about that Asimov's article:
http://www.triumf.info/wiki/pwalden/index.php/Issac_Asimov's...
Also, Al Bartlett's thesis:
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8
The transcript:
https://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_populati...
http://www.triumf.info/wiki/pwalden/index.php/Issac_Asimov's...
Also, Al Bartlett's thesis:
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8
The transcript:
https://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_populati...
See the sibling comment by jdietrich.
And if you are still not convinced, this short video: https://www.gapminder.org/answers/how-reliable-is-the-world-... and, if you're interested more on why the forecast is so flat, I highly recommend taking the test at gapminder.org then watching Hans' TED talks.
I mean, a bunch of O’Neill cylinders turns the carrying capacity of our solar system into potentially trillions of people if not more. Turning the entirety of habitable ground into Manhattan is hilariously far off just because we can expand habitable ground pretty damned far.
If we can make enough O'Neill cylinders to handle a trillion (10^15) people, that would buy 440 years at the current grown rate (doubling every 63 years) starting from the current population (7.7 billion).
If we can build enough to handle 1000 times that population, one quadrillion people, that can handle 1000 years of growth.
An upper limit on the number of people we can have without leaving the solar system is about 28 octillion (2.8 x 10^28), obtained by dividing the mass of the sum (1.9891 x 10^30 kg) by the mass of an average human (70 kg).
At the current growth rate, that's 3900 years away.
Indefinite exponential growth can overwhelm pretty much anything.
If we can build enough to handle 1000 times that population, one quadrillion people, that can handle 1000 years of growth.
An upper limit on the number of people we can have without leaving the solar system is about 28 octillion (2.8 x 10^28), obtained by dividing the mass of the sum (1.9891 x 10^30 kg) by the mass of an average human (70 kg).
At the current growth rate, that's 3900 years away.
Indefinite exponential growth can overwhelm pretty much anything.
I think a trillion people can find a solution to that problem in under 440 years.
besides being unethical, it can't really work, as it's a pyramid scheme, no?
> We need to find a way to sustainably live on this planet with a reasonably sized population
Well said.
Let's face it. Capitalism doesn't need to exist. What need to exist is the human race. Capitalism might as well be a byproduct of our rapid technological advances comes with industrial revolution.
If we think out of box, this might be as well an outlier of our history. Productivity rarely increases this much and drastically through human history, and guess what, the world is fine.
We might as well approaching the ultimate limit that we are testing the Earth's very capacity under the name of growth.
Maybe acknowledging that technology advances later will slow down (it probably already does), the easy to grab resources are fully utilized, and we might not further optimize our energy efficiency, isn't an abnormal thing in the future.
Capitalism is a tool we devised, now it has probably fulfilled its destiny, at least for that time being. And the focus of global governance should shift from being the economical winner to co-exist peacefully and sustainably in a controlled way.
Well said.
Let's face it. Capitalism doesn't need to exist. What need to exist is the human race. Capitalism might as well be a byproduct of our rapid technological advances comes with industrial revolution.
If we think out of box, this might be as well an outlier of our history. Productivity rarely increases this much and drastically through human history, and guess what, the world is fine.
We might as well approaching the ultimate limit that we are testing the Earth's very capacity under the name of growth.
Maybe acknowledging that technology advances later will slow down (it probably already does), the easy to grab resources are fully utilized, and we might not further optimize our energy efficiency, isn't an abnormal thing in the future.
Capitalism is a tool we devised, now it has probably fulfilled its destiny, at least for that time being. And the focus of global governance should shift from being the economical winner to co-exist peacefully and sustainably in a controlled way.
...Capitalism doesn't need to exist. What need to exist is
the human race. Capitalism might as well be a byproduct of
our rapid technological advances comes with industrial
revolution.
Capitalism is a tool we devised, now it has probably
fulfilled its destiny, at least for that time being. And
the focus of global governance should shift from being the
economical winner to co-exist peacefully and sustainably
in a controlled way.
Keep in mind they are just entering the phase when they can expect to greatly benefit from their favorable demographics while those in the West are facing decline.
Do you expect them to willingly come on board this new economic deal, that the West proposes? Do you see no conflict of interests?
It comes down to: Are people going to responsibly manage their family sizes at a family scale; if not then either we continue as is, or start going down a dark path.
A sticking point also seems to be: Are people who are having lots of children the same people who are consuming middle-income+ levels of resources?
A sticking point also seems to be: Are people who are having lots of children the same people who are consuming middle-income+ levels of resources?
Birth rates are below replacement everywhere in the developed world and China and most other places except the middle east and africa. There is no need for forced sterilization or whatever you were alluding to.
Let me rephrase: what happens when the developing world, larger in population size, reaches the wealth of the developed world. Has the problem dissipated upon reaching that point?
Fertility rates have been decreasing rapidly all over the developing world. For instance, in Brazil it went from over 5 to around 1.7 in just 50 years. It has decreased so much that that country's very generous public pension system, created when the median age was around 18, eats most of the government's budget and has all but collapsed (current median age is 37).
Back in the 1970s your typical sci-fi dystopia was an overcrowded world. Personally I'm more afraid of a world with ghost cities inhabited by a handful of elderly people
Back in the 1970s your typical sci-fi dystopia was an overcrowded world. Personally I'm more afraid of a world with ghost cities inhabited by a handful of elderly people
The evidence is yes. Assuming the developing world also provides access to birth control, allows women to access education and jobs, etc. then it seems that cultures naturally reach a point where the birthrate lowers.
Based on what we know, the global population would crest, and then begin to gradually subside globally. The biggest question would be, what is the peak and is that number tolerable even for a short while.
There will be at some point though. Fertility is moderately heritable.
Even if it is; the availability of pretty much perfect contraceptives negates that to a large degree. The use of contraceptives is cultural, not biological.
So we'll hit a replacement problem long before natural selection has time to catch up. The replacement issue has already real implications, this will become much more obvious in the course of the next 30 years.
Any relevant change on the population size the propensity for fertility can have; it will take (three, four, five , ...) generations to manifest.
So we'll hit a replacement problem long before natural selection has time to catch up. The replacement issue has already real implications, this will become much more obvious in the course of the next 30 years.
Any relevant change on the population size the propensity for fertility can have; it will take (three, four, five , ...) generations to manifest.
> Even if it is; the availability of pretty much perfect contraceptives negates that to a large degree.
No it doesn’t. My wife an I both wanted to have large families, even when we were children. How will contraceptives affect people’s basic motivations and life goals?
> Any relevant change on the population size the propensity for fertility can have; it will take (three, four, five , ...) generations to manifest.
Five generations is only 100-150 years. And anyway, we have a precedent for what happens when there is significant population reduction: the Black Death. Life got way better for the vast majority of people who survived that event. So much so that it ended feudalism in most of Europe. The only problem is finding pensions. Oh well. It’s incredibly immoral to yoke our descendants with the responsibility of funding an extended retirement for us.
No it doesn’t. My wife an I both wanted to have large families, even when we were children. How will contraceptives affect people’s basic motivations and life goals?
> Any relevant change on the population size the propensity for fertility can have; it will take (three, four, five , ...) generations to manifest.
Five generations is only 100-150 years. And anyway, we have a precedent for what happens when there is significant population reduction: the Black Death. Life got way better for the vast majority of people who survived that event. So much so that it ended feudalism in most of Europe. The only problem is finding pensions. Oh well. It’s incredibly immoral to yoke our descendants with the responsibility of funding an extended retirement for us.
There is a wealth of data now that shows fertility declining with increased standard of living. (Lots of correlations obscure the exact causations, but among the correlations is female economic and social mobility.) Your example is an eminently plausible mechanism for the spread of high fertility via either genetic or social vectors - but given that it contradicts the data, I don't see how it can be any more than an anecdote. Perhaps the grandchildren of large families are sufficiently removed to revert to the social mean? I don't know.
As for the Black Death, the personal and societal restrictions that result from not wanting to die from casual contact were probably quite a relief to escape and reverse. I don't know enough about history, but I could imagine that kicking off a positive chain reaction. After a cold season, people love to play in the sun.
This part is just speculation on my part, though; you're welcome to continue siding with Thanos.
As for the Black Death, the personal and societal restrictions that result from not wanting to die from casual contact were probably quite a relief to escape and reverse. I don't know enough about history, but I could imagine that kicking off a positive chain reaction. After a cold season, people love to play in the sun.
This part is just speculation on my part, though; you're welcome to continue siding with Thanos.
The mechanism is that the propensity to have more children is partly genetic. So as people with those genes out-breed the rest of the population, those genes come to predominate in the population. Thus overcoming the demographic transition. Here is a recent paper that models this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381...
The Black Death is pretty well accepted as a contributor to the end of feudalism. I guess you’re positing that somehow that would be the result of survivors feeling elated at having gotten past the catastrophe (which is a temporary emotion), versus their facing an easier life as a result of 50% of the population dying (an effect which lasts a lifetime). Seems implausible to me.
But also, that the reduction in labor supply lead to vastly improved outcomes for laborers is pretty well attested. Lords of the manor started competing for labor because it was scarce. As a result, laborers were able to transition into owning their own property. It was a big deal. And it has to do with permanently reducing the population to well below the Malthusian limit (the plague periodically re-occurred for centuries, culling the population each time).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381...
The Black Death is pretty well accepted as a contributor to the end of feudalism. I guess you’re positing that somehow that would be the result of survivors feeling elated at having gotten past the catastrophe (which is a temporary emotion), versus their facing an easier life as a result of 50% of the population dying (an effect which lasts a lifetime). Seems implausible to me.
But also, that the reduction in labor supply lead to vastly improved outcomes for laborers is pretty well attested. Lords of the manor started competing for labor because it was scarce. As a result, laborers were able to transition into owning their own property. It was a big deal. And it has to do with permanently reducing the population to well below the Malthusian limit (the plague periodically re-occurred for centuries, culling the population each time).
> The mechanism is that the propensity to have more children is partly genetic. So as people with those genes out-breed the rest of the population, those genes come to predominate in the population. Thus overcoming the demographic transition.
Is this entirely a genetic thing or are there also cultural components? I’ve long entertained a crackpot theory that North America will be almost entirely Mormon or Roman Catholic in 200 years, partially for this reason. The only reservation being that secular-humanist culture seems to convert people from more traditional cultures even faster than they reproduce....
Is this entirely a genetic thing or are there also cultural components? I’ve long entertained a crackpot theory that North America will be almost entirely Mormon or Roman Catholic in 200 years, partially for this reason. The only reservation being that secular-humanist culture seems to convert people from more traditional cultures even faster than they reproduce....
The heritability of fertility is about 50%, I believe. So about half of the variance in number of offspring is genetic. The remainder is other stuff: culture, chance, etc. I would imagine that the genetic component is multi faceted. Some of it might be a desire to have children. Some of it might be a resistance to certain ideas or lifestyles that result in fewer offspring (if that seems far fetched, consider first that political orientation is also about 50% heritable).
But also consider that it’s hard to experimentally separate cultural and genetic influences because most children are raised and hence inculturated by at least one of their genetic parents.
There are natural occurring experiments which overcome this called twins. Studies of twins are what’s usually involved in figuring out the genetic component of a characteristic or behavior.
> I’ve long entertained a crackpot theory that North America will be almost entirely Mormon or Roman Catholic in 200 years, partially for this reason.
Or Muslim, although that's more likely in Europe at this point.
> The only reservation being that secular-humanist culture seems to convert people from more traditional cultures even faster than they reproduce....
Perhaps in a few hundred years secular humanism will be seen a memetic Black Death.
Or Muslim, although that's more likely in Europe at this point.
> The only reservation being that secular-humanist culture seems to convert people from more traditional cultures even faster than they reproduce....
Perhaps in a few hundred years secular humanism will be seen a memetic Black Death.
Some people will want to have large families, but on average it seems that most people don't.
If the tendency to have large families is heritable in some measurable way, maybe because of beliefs or personality traits, wouldn't the carriers of whatever makes them have more babies eventually overtake the rest of the population?
It may not be the case that this is how it will work, but it's not a foregone conclusion that "on average" most people will continue to not want to have kids even in the "first world."
(Don't Mormons for instance have a fertility rate well above replacement despite also having higher than average incomes?)
It may not be the case that this is how it will work, but it's not a foregone conclusion that "on average" most people will continue to not want to have kids even in the "first world."
(Don't Mormons for instance have a fertility rate well above replacement despite also having higher than average incomes?)
That seems plausible. I think it's reasonable to suppose that people who grew up in large families might themselves prefer to have large families, but I also suspect that personal preferences like that aren't all that sticky across more than a few generations. Maybe it balances out. For now, we can just say that most people in well-off societies aren't opting to have large families and that doesn't appear likely to change in the near future.
> I also suspect that personal preferences like that aren't all that sticky across more than a few generations
There is pretty strong evidence that the variance in the number of offspring is about 50% genetic.
There is pretty strong evidence that the variance in the number of offspring is about 50% genetic.
> And anyway, we have a precedent for what happens when there is significant population reduction: the Black Death. Life got way better for the vast majority of people who survived that event.
The difference between the Black Death and a population decline driven by lower fertility rates is that the Black Death disproportionately claimed the lives of the old and the frail. The result of that (at terrible cost) was an increase in average productivity by removing the people who would otherwise have required assistance, along with a reduction in competition for scarce resources (like food).
A population decline driven by a reduction in the fertility rate effectively does the opposite -- you end up with more elderly people compared to the number of young working people. And we haven't had a meaningful scarcity of food in centuries, so the things that are scarce now are certain types of skilled labor (e.g. doctors), which you can only really source from young people because there aren't a lot of medical school applicants from the population of people 55 and older.
The difference between the Black Death and a population decline driven by lower fertility rates is that the Black Death disproportionately claimed the lives of the old and the frail. The result of that (at terrible cost) was an increase in average productivity by removing the people who would otherwise have required assistance, along with a reduction in competition for scarce resources (like food).
A population decline driven by a reduction in the fertility rate effectively does the opposite -- you end up with more elderly people compared to the number of young working people. And we haven't had a meaningful scarcity of food in centuries, so the things that are scarce now are certain types of skilled labor (e.g. doctors), which you can only really source from young people because there aren't a lot of medical school applicants from the population of people 55 and older.
The Black Death killed people all at once, though. Especially the old and infirm. A demographic population decline would mean large numbers of people growing old and infirm while the necessary workload of producing the goods and services they consume gets concentrated among fewer and fewer people. One particular example of this might be shortages of doctors and other medical professionals, hospital overcrowding, and similar issues.
>No it doesn’t. My wife an I both wanted to have large families, even when we were children. How will contraceptives affect people’s basic motivations and life goals?
they will in combination with economic incentives. In a world where skilled labour is rewarded and the cost of raising a child is higher and higher, whose going to pay for your large family? When people in developed economies today date, do you think they favour high social status and intelligence or sperm count?
Fertility and some other biological traits have always been positively selected for. Is the world overrun by virile, promiscuous musclemen and women with wide hips?
they will in combination with economic incentives. In a world where skilled labour is rewarded and the cost of raising a child is higher and higher, whose going to pay for your large family? When people in developed economies today date, do you think they favour high social status and intelligence or sperm count?
Fertility and some other biological traits have always been positively selected for. Is the world overrun by virile, promiscuous musclemen and women with wide hips?
> Fertility and some other biological traits have always been positively selected for. Is the world overrun by virile, promiscuous musclemen and women with wide hips?
Fertility is a multifaceted trait; the degree to which a woman is fertile is dependent on a multitude of other traits and characteristics. It seems pretty clear that a desire to have children was not really necessary in the past in order to end up with lots of children. Having children was just something you did, so most couples had children and, consequently, fertility was driven by other traits. Perhaps desire to have sex, ability to earn income, etc. But things have changed. Now it seems pretty clear that the most important factors in fertility are A) whether or not the woman pursues college and a white collar career path, and B) whether or not both parents have an innate drive to have children (those two traits are probably related).
So yes, fertility has always been positively selected for. But the traits that drive fertility have changed as a result of our changing environment. So evolution is selecting for different traits at the moment.
Fertility is a multifaceted trait; the degree to which a woman is fertile is dependent on a multitude of other traits and characteristics. It seems pretty clear that a desire to have children was not really necessary in the past in order to end up with lots of children. Having children was just something you did, so most couples had children and, consequently, fertility was driven by other traits. Perhaps desire to have sex, ability to earn income, etc. But things have changed. Now it seems pretty clear that the most important factors in fertility are A) whether or not the woman pursues college and a white collar career path, and B) whether or not both parents have an innate drive to have children (those two traits are probably related).
So yes, fertility has always been positively selected for. But the traits that drive fertility have changed as a result of our changing environment. So evolution is selecting for different traits at the moment.
Except for the millions that died.
My friend's sister has a lot of children despite being relatively poor because being pregnant makes her feel good. It's a high. Such a trait will probably spread.
In a decade or so politicians may start fighting to tear down the wall.
The one they refused to build?
I keep being surprised that this is surprising to anyone. This is a commonly-observed pattern in biology; a simple graph called the Gompertz function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz_function) is often used to model it.
I guess most folks have always assumed that humans were somehow exempt from the natural laws, maybe because of the much greater degree to which we are able to reshape our environment to suit our needs (sometimes to our long-term detriment).
But so many growth-related things seem to follow a Gompertz function that I think it's likely we just don't yet understand all of the factors when figuring out our own carrying capacity.
I'm really curious whether our asymptotic population limit only applies to our population on one world, or if, were we to eventually become multiplanetary, we'd discover that a whole other planet wouldn't really increase our overall population that much.
I wish I could be around to see the answer to that question.
I guess most folks have always assumed that humans were somehow exempt from the natural laws, maybe because of the much greater degree to which we are able to reshape our environment to suit our needs (sometimes to our long-term detriment).
But so many growth-related things seem to follow a Gompertz function that I think it's likely we just don't yet understand all of the factors when figuring out our own carrying capacity.
I'm really curious whether our asymptotic population limit only applies to our population on one world, or if, were we to eventually become multiplanetary, we'd discover that a whole other planet wouldn't really increase our overall population that much.
I wish I could be around to see the answer to that question.
Unless I'm missing something, the Gompertz function you refer to has an implicit model that the organism's population stabilizes because of Malthusian constraints, a lack of some kind of resource.
But birth rates have been declining in first-world countries for a long time in the absence of this kind of constraint, and the Foreign Affairs article specifically notes that both Malthus and Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" doomsday resource-shortage scenarios didn't come to pass.
The Earth certainly does have some kind of carrying capacity for humans, but that's not the limit that's being it, it's something else.
But birth rates have been declining in first-world countries for a long time in the absence of this kind of constraint, and the Foreign Affairs article specifically notes that both Malthus and Paul Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" doomsday resource-shortage scenarios didn't come to pass.
The Earth certainly does have some kind of carrying capacity for humans, but that's not the limit that's being it, it's something else.
I think western population development has gone sustainable largely due to social advancements re women. Not all parts of the world have yet had that kind of progress, and are still happily multiplying in an unsustainable way. Unless we manage to export this kind of progress, I fear we will not be able to avoid all overpopulation issues. One problem is that costly (in loss of lives) regional wars over resources and the enslavement of women as a means of replenishment for your armies are a circular feedback mechanism. Unless the circle of war and patriarchy is broken, some cultures will probably expand to their malthusian limits.
> the enslavement of women as a means of replenishment for your armies
What society has ever done that?
What society has ever done that?
We're they raping in order to replenish their armies? The claim is rather far fetched.
The word "rape" in this context is taken to mean abduction. This is then followed by the integration of the abductees into the abductor's society.
From the article: "At the festival, Romulus gave a signal, at which the Romans grabbed the Sabine women and fought off the Sabine men. The indignant abductees were soon implored by Romulus to accept Roman husbands".
That the second phase may have employed carrots as well as sticks does not detract from the fact that the Romans have thereby managed to expand their reproductive capacities while simultaneously contracting that of the rival Sabines.
From the article: "At the festival, Romulus gave a signal, at which the Romans grabbed the Sabine women and fought off the Sabine men. The indignant abductees were soon implored by Romulus to accept Roman husbands".
That the second phase may have employed carrots as well as sticks does not detract from the fact that the Romans have thereby managed to expand their reproductive capacities while simultaneously contracting that of the rival Sabines.
Every society that denies women independence from men. I agree this is a sliding scale, but near the extreme end is this staple: Girls belong to the parents until such time as they are married off to a husband, who is then in effect their new owner. I take the liberty to call this slavery.
I was talking about forcing women into the army.
Oh my, that's what you thought I meant with "the enslavement of women as a means of replenishment for your armies"?
I fear that was a misunderstanding, good sir. I didn't mean that women were ever press ganged into the army, but into producing the next generation of recruits. Frankly, I actually lold when I got that just now! =)
I fear that was a misunderstanding, good sir. I didn't mean that women were ever press ganged into the army, but into producing the next generation of recruits. Frankly, I actually lold when I got that just now! =)
> Not all parts of the world have yet had that kind of progress, and are still happily multiplying in an unsustainable way. Unless we manage to export this kind of progress, I fear we will not be able to avoid all overpopulation issues.
This is simply not true. Not even close.
I recommend watching:
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/will-saving-poor-children-l...
or, if you can spend more time,
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-...
or any of Hans Rosling's TED talks. And you'll find that your statement I quoted above is simply wrong.
This is simply not true. Not even close.
I recommend watching:
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/will-saving-poor-children-l...
or, if you can spend more time,
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-...
or any of Hans Rosling's TED talks. And you'll find that your statement I quoted above is simply wrong.
I've watched Rosling stuff before. What part of the linked videos do you think are evidence against?
I maintain there are a number of countries that still have unsustainable population growth. I wouldn't want to pick any one out. But be my guest and have a look-see at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_i...
The population growth is basically a transitional state between high infant mortality / high birthrate to low infant mortality / low birthrate. There's no society in existence that had sustained "high birthrate / low infant mortality".
Play the following graph from 1800 to today:
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$marker$axis_x$which=...
It's very clear where we're headed and we're actually closer to the stable point, given China and India are already near the birthrate of 2.
> ... are still happily multiplying in an unsustainable way.
See the graph above. This is already not true.
> Unless we manage to export this kind of progress
This has already happened mostly. Africa is the laggard currently but is already rapidly catching up, and it's crystal clear that we'll get there.
I recommend taking the gapminder.org test. I think you'll be surprised how wrong you are.
Play the following graph from 1800 to today:
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state$marker$axis_x$which=...
It's very clear where we're headed and we're actually closer to the stable point, given China and India are already near the birthrate of 2.
> ... are still happily multiplying in an unsustainable way.
See the graph above. This is already not true.
> Unless we manage to export this kind of progress
This has already happened mostly. Africa is the laggard currently but is already rapidly catching up, and it's crystal clear that we'll get there.
I recommend taking the gapminder.org test. I think you'll be surprised how wrong you are.
It's often observed that as societies grow richer, their birthrate plummets. The paradox is that in order to tap into those riches people have to work more, which may be one of the explanations for why the population tends to decline in those countries.
Thus the constraint may just be "time to make babies".
Thus the constraint may just be "time to make babies".
Time and resources to make and support babies is a big constraint.
Most parents want to provide a standard of living to their kids that is better than what they grew up in, which costs significantly more to provide.
Kids didn't always have their own bedrooms or cellphones, and in an agrarian society kids were useful as extra "free" labor. The shift to cities has rewritten the economic calculations potential parents do.
Most parents want to provide a standard of living to their kids that is better than what they grew up in, which costs significantly more to provide.
Kids didn't always have their own bedrooms or cellphones, and in an agrarian society kids were useful as extra "free" labor. The shift to cities has rewritten the economic calculations potential parents do.
Children used to be a way to support oneself in retirement. The more children you had, the better chance that at least one or two would be around in adulthood to take care of you.
Affluence means you have the means to take care of yourself, so therefore don't need to spend the effort of raising kids for this reason.
Affluence means you have the means to take care of yourself, so therefore don't need to spend the effort of raising kids for this reason.
In the US, I would say affluence actually allows you to have children, if you want to provide them with life in a good school district and a single family home in a suburb close to burgeoning city. You have to borrow student loans, then work to save for a down payment, then save for childbirth and health expenses. Now you have structural costs of student loan debt repayment, mortgage debt repayment, daycare, property tax, retirement savings debt, and possible vehicle debt repayment. And now you’ve advanced in age, and you can only have 2 kids.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This isn’t a problem, it’s just preparation for the next stage of evolution (AGI). Our task is nearly complete.
I often wonder what post AGI society will look like:
- Will we become pets?
- Will we become extinct?
- Will we absorb into the AGI?
Maybe the AGI will just disappear and leave human affairs to humans and with some residual presence to ensure we never create a second.
I think much more likely than real AGI, we create an "intelligent" computer virus that locks up all networked computing power.
- Will we become pets?
- Will we become extinct?
- Will we absorb into the AGI?
Maybe the AGI will just disappear and leave human affairs to humans and with some residual presence to ensure we never create a second.
I think much more likely than real AGI, we create an "intelligent" computer virus that locks up all networked computing power.
Perhaps humans, with the aid of super powerful computers, can unlock our genome and in turn make us more competitive.
There will be some left behind, but humanity will continue on as an partially artificial GMO much like our own creations
There will be some left behind, but humanity will continue on as an partially artificial GMO much like our own creations
In the near term, I agree that genetically modified humans make a ton of sense. In fact, this is already happening.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6331330/
Post-AGI, I'm not sure if life as we know it makes sense from a practical perspective. My post AGI assumptions:
- You can fully emulate a brain digitally
- The AGI will do this emulation with less power than our bodies naturally consume
- Any physical interaction with the world will be carried out better with 100% robotics or networked bodies genetically modified to the point we can no longer consider them independent or human.
I really don't think the AGI will have any inherent practical use of keeping humans around in any form. The real question is what will the AGI want to do? It will literally be a god with no limits we are capable of understanding. What will this god want to do?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6331330/
Post-AGI, I'm not sure if life as we know it makes sense from a practical perspective. My post AGI assumptions:
- You can fully emulate a brain digitally
- The AGI will do this emulation with less power than our bodies naturally consume
- Any physical interaction with the world will be carried out better with 100% robotics or networked bodies genetically modified to the point we can no longer consider them independent or human.
I really don't think the AGI will have any inherent practical use of keeping humans around in any form. The real question is what will the AGI want to do? It will literally be a god with no limits we are capable of understanding. What will this god want to do?
Why does it have to be "the end of capitalism" ? The world population will not disappear overnight. It will take several decades (at least) for that number to go down at some point in this century, and it has almost nothing to do with global spending, at least not in the short term.
And it will take decades more to bring everyone up to western levels of consumption so there will be plenty of unsatisfied demand for a long time. Long enough to think up responses to this challenge.
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell."
-Edward Abbey
this has always seemed to be kind of a silly quote to me. it's not untrue but it seems to imply that this is something unusual about a cancer cell. growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of life itself. I don't know of any organisms that are capable of regulating their own species's growth/consumption for long term survival (although now that I've said this, I'm sure someone will respond with the odd exception).
For all we know, we're the brightest light of consciousness in the universe. (Hopefully not, feel free to prove me wrong). Expanding this consciousness seems a worthy goal.
In terms of "killing" the Earth. It's not really possible for us to do (yet). We could surely kill humanity but we cannot possibly eliminate complex life from Earth.
More interestingly, I think we have a burden placed upon us by our own development. It's quite likely that any complex society of our state required easily exploitable energy in the form of gas and coal. Now the reserves accessible by primitive technology are all but gone. These reserves take tens if not hundreds of millions of years to form. If humanity dies out, another intelligent species may not even have the potential to rise for a long time if ever again.
In terms of "killing" the Earth. It's not really possible for us to do (yet). We could surely kill humanity but we cannot possibly eliminate complex life from Earth.
More interestingly, I think we have a burden placed upon us by our own development. It's quite likely that any complex society of our state required easily exploitable energy in the form of gas and coal. Now the reserves accessible by primitive technology are all but gone. These reserves take tens if not hundreds of millions of years to form. If humanity dies out, another intelligent species may not even have the potential to rise for a long time if ever again.
> We could surely kill humanity but we cannot possibly eliminate complex life from Earth.
Why do you think nuclear war can't do that?
Why do you think nuclear war can't do that?
The Chicxulub impactor (an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs), had impact energy roughly equivalent to 100 million TSAR Bombas (50MT nuke) and the largest nuclear weapon ever denotated.
The currently nuclear stockpile is about 1000x short, with some very friendly assumptions about our capabilities.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
The currently nuclear stockpile is about 1000x short, with some very friendly assumptions about our capabilities.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
Nuclear bombs aren't simply bombs releasing their energy, they would also fill the atmosphere with radioactive material. It would contaminate the entire planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout
The radioactivity still wouldn't kill all multicellular life (or even complex life). Some predict that an all-out nuclear war wouldn't even make humans go extinct.
A few sources:
- https://www.msn.com/en-in/health/medical/20-life-forms-that-...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust
- https://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
A few sources:
- https://www.msn.com/en-in/health/medical/20-life-forms-that-...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust
- https://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
Economic growth is not "for the sake of growth;" it's for the sake of wealth.
What do you think wealth means
Quality of life and human agency.
Current economic wealth is implicitly dependent on asymmetric relationships! It's not win win by design. Without the assymetrical relationship wealth doesn't exist.
The other one is predicated in equity but if we talk about it a bunch of suck holes go full Ayn Rand on things.
The other one is predicated in equity but if we talk about it a bunch of suck holes go full Ayn Rand on things.
[deleted]
[deleted]
tabtab(1)
It's about time that people stopped regarding declining population as a threat and started treating it as an opportunity instead.
As my former boss often says, we don't have problems only challenges.
As my former boss often says, we don't have problems only challenges.
If we don't want the entire earth to looked like mumbai, i'd say it's even the only way to go.
Space is not going to save us any time soon, people suck at restraining themself and given our current situation we can approximate our planet to a close system with finite resources.
So yeah, I'd go with less babies. Or more deaths, but one is more pleasant.
Space is not going to save us any time soon, people suck at restraining themself and given our current situation we can approximate our planet to a close system with finite resources.
So yeah, I'd go with less babies. Or more deaths, but one is more pleasant.
> If we don't want the entire earth to looked like mumbai
If the whole world reaches Mumbai's density (75k/sq mile), we would host 15 trillion people. Now, no matter what projections you hear from anyone, you never hear a peak population of more than 50 billion, so you are off by a factor of 300.
Here's for example the latest UN prediction up to 2100. You'll notice a 95% estimate that we'll be below 13 billion.
[1] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/9...
If the whole world reaches Mumbai's density (75k/sq mile), we would host 15 trillion people. Now, no matter what projections you hear from anyone, you never hear a peak population of more than 50 billion, so you are off by a factor of 300.
Here's for example the latest UN prediction up to 2100. You'll notice a 95% estimate that we'll be below 13 billion.
[1] https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/9...
I didn't express a scientific prediction, but used an image of extreme poverty and pollution to underline the caveats of overpopulation.
What's more, the vast majority of indian population consumme much less than the average american.
Democracy, health care, education, respect of the individual, peace... All that are affected, at various degree of overpopulation. There is not need to mirror your stats.
What's more, the vast majority of indian population consumme much less than the average american.
Democracy, health care, education, respect of the individual, peace... All that are affected, at various degree of overpopulation. There is not need to mirror your stats.
Por que no los dos?
Seems like it’s a threat for countries that depend on a growing work force to pay pensions for retirees. But a benefit for a strained planet.
Seems like it’s a threat for countries that depend on a growing work force to pay pensions for retirees. But a benefit for a strained planet.
Fertility is heritable. This, too, shall pass.
See my answer above; before natural selection kicks in and makes the population rebound, we'll already have hit the replacement problem.
See mine as well. Reduced population is not a problem. Life is easier, not harder, when there is less competition for resources. Our pension systems will collapse, though. People will adapt; pensions have not existed for most of human history.
From current levels maybe, but not always.
We cooperate as well as compete. A world with too few people would have its own struggles.
We cooperate as well as compete. A world with too few people would have its own struggles.
Capitalism is about the allocation of capital in society. The article tries to make the point that Capitalism depends on ever increasing markets and/or labor forces. Capitalism is a self-organizing system and will allocate capital for products and services wherever the individual participants decide is the best place for them to put their capital to work. If fewer babies are born and more 60+ exist then capital will flow to adult diapers instead of infant ones. Capital can be destroyed as well so it's not like we'll have toxic waste dumps of unused capital. A shrinking population is a change and an opportunity, it's not the end of the world.
RyanAF7(1)
I’m not convinced that the decline in birth rates is just because more children survive; that’s an assumption that as far as I know, nobody has ever rigorously checked. It smells fishy.
There are other possible explanations: birth control becoming available, women having to work full time, children are no longer exploitable cheap labor.
The big picture is that capitalism will only invest in something if the investor is able to also claim the gains. But the profits of having children go to society in general, not to a specific investor, therefore our children are under supported. The solution is probably going to either be socialism, or some sort of investment scheme where capitalists will pay people to have children but then they’ll be indentured servants or something.
Go ahead and call me crazy then come back and look at this post in 50 years.
Edit: actually it would probably work something like: we, babycorp, will pay you 250,000 dollars to pop out a baby, she will go to the finest schools, she will want for nothing, but at the age of 30 she will have to pay back the debt, with interest. (Which she can do by having kids of her own). This is basically how capitalism thinks, admit it, it’s not that far fetched.
There are other possible explanations: birth control becoming available, women having to work full time, children are no longer exploitable cheap labor.
The big picture is that capitalism will only invest in something if the investor is able to also claim the gains. But the profits of having children go to society in general, not to a specific investor, therefore our children are under supported. The solution is probably going to either be socialism, or some sort of investment scheme where capitalists will pay people to have children but then they’ll be indentured servants or something.
Go ahead and call me crazy then come back and look at this post in 50 years.
Edit: actually it would probably work something like: we, babycorp, will pay you 250,000 dollars to pop out a baby, she will go to the finest schools, she will want for nothing, but at the age of 30 she will have to pay back the debt, with interest. (Which she can do by having kids of her own). This is basically how capitalism thinks, admit it, it’s not that far fetched.
This phenomena is why I'm strongly pro-immigration. Speaking as an American, I want there to be more Americans. We're not making them ourselves so we need to import. The more we import now, the better since the current population is both younger and more numerous than it will be in a few decades when we'd actually need the imported population. Doing it now means the Americanization of the immigrants will be more complete. We should bring them in and turn them American while we still have the numbers and dynamism to do so.
I'm Australian, have lived in the US, and now live in Denmark. I'm also pro immigration, both for skilled and unskilled workers. However Non-Western (as defined by the Danish Ministry of Statistics) has been financially costly for the welfare state, and the assumption that unskilled immigrant descendents will (as a whole) outperform their parents has not been realized.
There's blame on both sides. Denmark doesn't do a stellar job of integrating outsiders despite ample funding. Likewise there are cultural incompatibilities, such as the handshake-citizenship debacle in a country that has arguably the closest gender equality in the world.
My personal lesson is that immigration is really complicated. I truly believe people should be free to move wherever to realise their maximum potential. But in holding this standpoint you must acknowledge the very real costs incurred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to
There's blame on both sides. Denmark doesn't do a stellar job of integrating outsiders despite ample funding. Likewise there are cultural incompatibilities, such as the handshake-citizenship debacle in a country that has arguably the closest gender equality in the world.
My personal lesson is that immigration is really complicated. I truly believe people should be free to move wherever to realise their maximum potential. But in holding this standpoint you must acknowledge the very real costs incurred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to
True, but I was primarily thinking of immigration from Western nations like Mexico and even Europe. It's surprisingly hard for, say, a British person to move permanently to the US. I'd like to see that changed.
Every Western nation has sub-replacement fertility rate now. Mexico is still slightly above, but will likely go below in the coming decade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Fertility_Rate,_195...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Fertility_Rate,_195...
> I truly believe people should be free to move wherever to realise their maximum potential.
Why? Why not improve their local environment to better help them "realise their maximum potential"? (I put your words in quotes because it's not a phrasing I like very much).
Why create a world where people have to move to have better opportunities rather than creating a world where there are better opportunities in increasingly more places?
Why? Why not improve their local environment to better help them "realise their maximum potential"? (I put your words in quotes because it's not a phrasing I like very much).
Why create a world where people have to move to have better opportunities rather than creating a world where there are better opportunities in increasingly more places?
By definition welfare is a net loss. Otherwise it wouldn’t be needed.
How can it be bad for immigrants to get more than they put in, but not citizens?
The “immigrants will get more out of welfare than they put in” is exactly how welfare is supposed to work!
How can it be bad for immigrants to get more than they put in, but not citizens?
The “immigrants will get more out of welfare than they put in” is exactly how welfare is supposed to work!
Welfare recipients spend every penny they receive so it contributes to the economy by keeping money moving.
It's not a zero sum game.
It's not a zero sum game.
Many (most in some countries) immigrants are citizens, so I don't think that's the distinction you meant to make.
Why do you want there to be more Americans? Is there some advantage to more people living in the geographical region?
Are you hoping that it will allow certain aspects of the culture to spread / persist?
If the latter, would it be as good to cultivate those things at home and allow them to spread on their own merit?
Or do you prefer for more people to exist under the national banner for its own sake?
Are you hoping that it will allow certain aspects of the culture to spread / persist?
If the latter, would it be as good to cultivate those things at home and allow them to spread on their own merit?
Or do you prefer for more people to exist under the national banner for its own sake?
All of the above. More Americans puts us in a better position to compete against China and India, and we can't expect our technological superiority to give us an edge forever. My view is of course biased, but I sincerely believe the world would be a crueler place were Chinese culture and military power to replace American cultural popularity and military power.
So I guess you want immigrants but not Chinese immigrants then? Otherwise they would bring their cruel culture to America?
I'm an American and I want there to be enough nurses and orderlies in American nursing homes when the time comes that I need them.
I’d rather go quietly into the night when the time comes that I’m not self sufficient (via assisted suicide). Perhaps that’s wishful thinking, and I won’t have the mental fortitude at that time.
Also likely, "culture of life" virtue signallers will prevent you from doing what's right for you by nudges that make suicide difficult, painful, and illegal. Part of your plan should be to support assisted suicide politically. For example, Neil Gorsuch wrote a book advocating against euthanasia, making him one of the worst Supreme Court picks I can imagine. https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8317.html
No thanks. I don't want there to be more Americans, I want there to be a better quality of life for the Americans that exist now and their descendants.
I don't see how it figures that more people packed into the same territory competing for a dwindling pool of resources is good for my country, even if the hundreds of millions of newcomers are eventually "Americans". I support controlled immigration when it benefits our country, but immigration for the sake of growing our population seems monumentally foolish. Housing, education, and healthcare are already scarce resources - let's focus on how to build our country into a better place to live for the people who are already vested in the system. In before "they'll pay for our pensions!" - debunked, more like "we're already paying for their food, housing, clothing, education, healthcare, and children", at least when it comes to illegal immigrants.
Also, for the environmentally-conscious - people moving here, a high per-capita carbon emissions country, from low per-capita carbon emissions country, is contributing to climate change. It's very frustrating to see publications from Wapo, to Time, to NatGeo encouraging Americans to stop having children to fight climate change, while simultaneously supporting high levels of immigration that contribute very significantly to increasing our population.
I don't see how it figures that more people packed into the same territory competing for a dwindling pool of resources is good for my country, even if the hundreds of millions of newcomers are eventually "Americans". I support controlled immigration when it benefits our country, but immigration for the sake of growing our population seems monumentally foolish. Housing, education, and healthcare are already scarce resources - let's focus on how to build our country into a better place to live for the people who are already vested in the system. In before "they'll pay for our pensions!" - debunked, more like "we're already paying for their food, housing, clothing, education, healthcare, and children", at least when it comes to illegal immigrants.
Also, for the environmentally-conscious - people moving here, a high per-capita carbon emissions country, from low per-capita carbon emissions country, is contributing to climate change. It's very frustrating to see publications from Wapo, to Time, to NatGeo encouraging Americans to stop having children to fight climate change, while simultaneously supporting high levels of immigration that contribute very significantly to increasing our population.
Why are you not making them yourselves? If it's because of economics, it clearly indicates unsustainable growth. The only thing immigration would support is below-livable wages.
We should bring them in and turn them American while we still have the numbers and dynamism to do so.
Which implies American levels of consumption and environmental damage.
Which implies American levels of consumption and environmental damage.
Problem 1: who would want to come to a country where they can be indoctrinated not to have babies?
Problem 2: it is unethical for rich people to depend on the fertility and then parental obligations of poor people in order to produce new people who will then be taxed to pay for the sterile old rich person. That is asking someone else to do all your hard work for you for free.
Problem 2: it is unethical for rich people to depend on the fertility and then parental obligations of poor people in order to produce new people who will then be taxed to pay for the sterile old rich person. That is asking someone else to do all your hard work for you for free.
“..new people who will then be taxed to pay for the sterile old rich person. That is asking someone else to do all your hard work for you for free.“
Um do you live here? That is basically how the economy works.
Um do you live here? That is basically how the economy works.
One cannot conclude an "ought" from an "is" without further assumptions.
I’d prefer to reserve as much of the country for my own descendants as possible, thanks. That’s what this country is: territory that our ancestors have bestowed upon us so we can have a place to live. We should do the same for our descendants, instead of just giving it away to whoever wants it. The rest of the humans on this planet already have their own countries.
Today's immigrants are the future other grandparents of your future grandchildren, or great grandparents of great grandchildren. If you doubt it, look a few generations back in your family tree.
Nobody needs immigrants to have ancestors for their descendants. However you slice it, immigration increases competition for the future citizens of this country.
I’d prefer to reserve as much of the planet to my own descendants. Immigrants may use more some infrastructure of your country but overpopulation surely use more the planet. By allowing immigration, you increase chances for immigrants to be more educated and therefore reduce the overall birth rate.
> By allowing immigration, you increase chances for immigrants to be more educated and therefore reduce the overall birth rate.
How do the people who immigrate here affect the behavior of people in the countries they left behind? Why would they not continue having too many children?
How do the people who immigrate here affect the behavior of people in the countries they left behind? Why would they not continue having too many children?
>The rest of the humans on this planet already have their own countries.
Do you not see the historical irony? Your (presumably European) ancestors had their own countries too. So did the inhabitants of the Americas before white people arrived there from 'their own countries'.
Do you not see the historical irony? Your (presumably European) ancestors had their own countries too. So did the inhabitants of the Americas before white people arrived there from 'their own countries'.
I've never understood this argument. How long does a territory need to be occupied for before the natives of that area can call it "their country."
Every country has a starting point, the USA's is just more recent.
Every country has a starting point, the USA's is just more recent.
We can’t undo the past. And, actually, European and African settlement of the Americas is an event that argues in my favor. There would be a lot more Native Americans today if their ancestors had had the ability to maintain territorial integrity. We should not voluntarily resign our descendants to the same fate.
I think we need to slow the pace of immigration, to preserve our culture.
To preserve what 'culture' exactly? When you say 'our' who are you referring to?
Obviously he means the American culture and by our he means Americans. There's no denying that if immigration is high enough, and assimilation poor enough, culture will change very quickly. Not saying its the case in the US but it's simple to understand what he meant.
You say that, but there are plenty of people with books and spots on TV that say the exact same things about 'culture' and they mean 'white' (and say it explicitly). It's a way for people to make an argument about something that doesn't need numbers or data, since immigrants rapidly become a net positive on the economy and commit less crime.
You don’t have a culture if it doesn’t change, you have an ideology.
...but if you import an ideology into your culture you'll end up with escalating conflict. The refusal to see this has created something more akin to a powder keg than a melting pot (to paraphrase the old moniker) which has the - already partly realised - potential for some serious destruction.
You realize all of the larger cultures on Earth are melting pots, right? Sweden, France and Germany each by themselves are cultural mutts, for example. To deny this is to deny history and archeology.
The "melting pot" idea of multiculturalism has been proven to be inaccurate, a better term for the way things actually work is a "salad bowl" - just search on "melting pot or salad bowl" to read more on this subject.
The example of Sweden is indicative of what I tried to convey as it has made the "salad bowl" concept part of its constitution which states that the country should "actively promote the distinctive collective identities of national minorities and immigrants" ([1] gives some insight in how things came to be like the way they are in Sweden). In the space of a few decades the country went from being one of the most homogeneous on earth to a boiling kettle of contrasting and often clashing cultures to which the term "mutt" - a mixed breed which has characteristics of all its predecessors - is not applicable as the constituent cultures mostly hold to their own. It is at the interfaces between those cultures tensions arise, sometimes between native Swedes and immigrants but more so between different groups of immigrants.
[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt20q22fw.13 ("The Political Dynamics of Multiculturalism in Sweden")
The example of Sweden is indicative of what I tried to convey as it has made the "salad bowl" concept part of its constitution which states that the country should "actively promote the distinctive collective identities of national minorities and immigrants" ([1] gives some insight in how things came to be like the way they are in Sweden). In the space of a few decades the country went from being one of the most homogeneous on earth to a boiling kettle of contrasting and often clashing cultures to which the term "mutt" - a mixed breed which has characteristics of all its predecessors - is not applicable as the constituent cultures mostly hold to their own. It is at the interfaces between those cultures tensions arise, sometimes between native Swedes and immigrants but more so between different groups of immigrants.
[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt20q22fw.13 ("The Political Dynamics of Multiculturalism in Sweden")
To summarize, he views the world economy as entirely enabled by the US Navy. The protection and projection of this naval forced has allowed an unparalleled level of relatively free global trade.
With the population bust, he predicts the US will turn inwards. The world economy will fragment. Less rigid economies will collapse. Global investment will all but dry up. His argumentation style is compelling whether or not you want to accept or debate his conclusions.