underpopulation crisis

[Being]

Do we really need more people on Earth? If so, what is the reason? Why isn't 8 billion enough?

impregnate the planet

Doing my best to help the underpopulation crisis. A collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far

[Being]

...Why isn't 8 billion enough?

Clue: It is about economics...

[Being]

Clue: It is about economics...

So what if we ignore economics? Are there other reasons for us to have an ever increasing human population?

[Lewkowski]

Very long term I can see it being an issue given current trends but that shit is like 70+ years out. Who knows what tech we will have or what cultural norms regarding having kids will be at. People need to chill, I swear some people are only happy if there's some existential threat looming that they feel they have to help prevent.

[LittleFuzzy]

You know, Being, I would have been perfectly happy to go through life without ever having heard about any fetishes Elon Musk might have *shudders*

[Being]

Don't read the part about his father then. That is creepy.

[wiggin]

So what if we ignore economics? Are there other reasons for us to have an ever increasing human population?

I actually think that if you ignore the Musk weirdness (sometimes I wonder if only people with super weird opinions become mega wealthy, or if become mega wealthy makes you develop super weird opinions, or if we all have super weird opinions but no one pays attention to them unless we're mega wealthy), there's an interesting philosophical question here.

Obviously there's the practical issues of having more people around - effects on the environment, distribution of limited resources, etc. But let us imagine a truly post scarcity society where there is no practical limit on the world/universe carrying capacity. What's the 'right' number of people? We see that in practice most countries go through a 'demographic transition' as they get wealthier, which might imply that the ideal number of humans is at least implicitly a lot lower than current levels. Maybe that's true, but I'm inclined to believe that said transition is just as affected by resource constraints as higher fertility levels in poorer places.

One could bound the problem, by for example trying to determine the minimum number of people necessary to keep the existing level of technology running. I've seen estimates that this would take on the order of 100 million humans, but frankly those are just guesses, and it also presupposes that maintaining the existing level of technological development is desired.

One could also look at this from a super quantitative 'happiness' perspective in the realm of population ethics, but frankly I find such analyses to be unappealing, unrealistic, and also answering a question that is not being asked.

Personally, absent any resource constraint, I would argue that higher populations of humans are bound to be preferred over lower populations of humans. Several reasons: first, there's a greater chance for someone truly extraordinary to appear - the Einsteins and Da Vincis and Newtons of the world are a rare breed indeed, and you have a higher probability of getting true genius if you have more shots on goal (it helps if all of those people we're making have good educations/health/etc., but again we're assuming no resource constraint). But I find that logic to be incomplete, because it assumes that all of those other people who aren't geniuses are just the dross we have to produce in order to achieve greatness. I cannot disagree enough with that narrow conclusion - yes, genius should be sought and celebrated, but that is not the sum total of existence.

People - plain old ordinary people like me or you - create and experience magic and joy and wonder and love. We look at a cold, unthinking cosmos (or at least our corner of it) and imbue it with meaning and beauty. I cannot imagine that having fewer people to engage in this fantastic experience would be a fundamentally good thing. Resource constraints are very real, and we should endeavor to live in harmony with our environment and provide adequate (nay, superlative!) resources for every single human being who is born into the world. But inside those constraints, I do think that more humanity is a fundamental good.

[Being]

Condensing your thoughts:

But let us imagine a truly post scarcity society where there is no practical limit on the world/universe carrying capacity.

Personally, absent any resource constraint, I would argue that higher populations of humans are bound to be preferred over lower populations of humans. Several reasons:

1. yes, genius should be sought and celebrated

2. I cannot imagine that having fewer people to engage in this fantastic experience would be a fundamentally good thing.

You say several reasons but I can only find two in your response.

Concerning reason #1 -- Selective breeding is an alternative that is much more efficient.

Concerning reason #2 -- How does the experience benefit from more people?

[LittleFuzzy]

Condensing your thoughts:



You say several reasons but I can only find two in your response.

Concerning reason #1 -- Selective breeding is an alternative that is much more efficient.

It might be, if there was any indication in the slightest that it was even marginally effective. But there is no indication that it would be the slightest bit effective. 100% efficiency of 0 is still 0.

Concerning reason #2 -- How does the experience benefit from more people?

. . .

are you asking what it is the EXPERIENCE gains from being experienced? If that's not what you were asking, then I don't think your edit for clarity went far enough.

[GGT]

People - plain old ordinary people like me or you - create and experience magic and joy and wonder and love. We look at a cold, unthinking cosmos (or at least our corner of it) and imbue it with meaning and beauty. I cannot imagine that having fewer people to engage in this fantastic experience would be a fundamentally good thing. Resource constraints are very real, and we should endeavor to live in harmony with our environment and provide adequate (nay, superlative!) resources for every single human being who is born into the world. But inside those constraints, I do think that more humanity is a fundamental good.

What is this, Romanticism vs Realism?

Your sentence is backward: "Superlative resources for every single human being in the world" will NOT happen since our "Resource constraints are very real". More people puts more strain on *all* resources, and waiting for a genius or two (or technological innovation) for solutions is just another way of ignoring the misery billions of people face as they eke out a life of subsistence.

Also, while "humanity" is fundamentally a good thing....it doesn't come from just more humans being on the planet. It might actually be the opposite, and could explain the rise of tribalism, nativism, authoritarianism, and wars.

[GGT]

This reminds me of the "Birth Dearth" debate from the late 1990's, based on the premise that the "wrong" people (third world nations) were having more babies than first world industrialized nations (Europeans, Americans).

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3072271

Since then we've seen a rise in anti-immigration sentiment across the globe. It will only get worse as *millions* of climate refugees join those seeking political asylum. Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.

[LittleFuzzy]

What is this, Romanticism vs Realism?

The thesis was clearly Romanticism in its classic literary sense.

Your sentence is backward: "Superlative resources for every single human being in the world" will NOT happen since our "Resource constraints are very real". More people puts more strain on *all* resources, and waiting for a genius or two (or technological innovation) for solutions is just another way of ignoring the misery billions of people face as they eke out a life of subsistence.

I've always said your comprehension is what's backward. Is it a memory issue? You just can't remember what was said in a preceding paragraph (or even a preceding sentence, often enough)? Your "objection" was already addressed.

Also, while "humanity" is fundamentally a good thing

How do you know? That's WHY he dropped the resource issue, to consider if/how there was a positive intrinsic value to be found in the first place.

....it doesn't come from just more humans being on the planet. It might actually be the opposite, and could explain the rise of tribalism, nativism, authoritarianism, and wars.

There's some value to that argument. It's somewhat limited though because history and study of social dynamics demonstrate we get all those even with very small numbers of humans, numbering in the mere hundreds or thousands.

[GGT]

Fuzzy, are you the pedantic nitpicker who just posts to correct how other people post?

FFS this thread started in July but I didn't read it until January, then wiggin's post caught my attention.

I didn't see anything in your critiques to Being or me that actually reflected *your* views regarding population growth or decline. Go ahead, have at it, and share your opinion. It's tiresome when you post like an editor but don't really participate.

[GGT]

Reset: instead of looking at population in economic terms, why not question if economic terms we've used for generations are the right metrics for a changing population?

Why is growth for growth's sake a good economic model and not just the definition of a cancer cell or ponzi scheme?

Why should having children be a retirement scheme in a post-agrarian society?

Won't the Baby Boomers (1946-1964) be an outlier in the near future, as they age and die out, and lose their political clout?

Why do we keep using GDP as a measure of a nation's strength, instead of quality of life or standard of living?

Also, you can't eat an iPhone or drink sand, and climate change isn't a hoax....so why are the fastest growing places in the US either deserts (AZ, NM, Nevada, Utah) or swamp land infills like Florida...that can't provide or manage potable water?

And more crucially -- why do we look at population in such narrow terms; locally or regionally instead of globally? Almost all of our problems could be solved with a steady state of growth, and using immigration to move people where they need to be, instead of keeping people cloistered within political boundaries and subject to abject poverty.

At its most basic level, it seems to me that patriarchy and misogyny are at work. But women are saying NO to being treated as breeders or brood mares by their governments. See South Korea and the 4 No's. There's a correlation in the US and anti-abortion measures in Red states.

Was it Justice Barrett or Alito who talked about the "domestic supply of babies" when overturning Roe v Wade? yeah, that's not pro-life but forced birth, and racist to boot.

[LittleFuzzy]

Fuzzy, are you the pedantic nitpicker

Yes

who just posts to correct how other people post?

No

FFS this thread started in July but I didn't read it until January, then wiggin's post caught my attention.

Who cares? What possible relevance does that have to what you said, what I said, or what you're saying now? Why do you think that matters?

I didn't see anything in your critiques to Being or me that actually reflected *your* views regarding population growth or decline.

What about population growth or decline? There are facts, and you can look them up. Global population is still growing. The overall rate of growth is declining. There are areas where net growth has become negative IIRC. I can't say I saw anything in your post that reflected your "view" of the "topic" myself. Being was also less then upfront and forthright.

Go ahead, have at it, and share your opinion. It's tiresome when you post like an editor but don't really participate.

What is the ideal shade of blue, GGT? What is your opinion of plasma? Could you share your view on circles?

I do participate in discussions on here and I have shared my views before. What is it you want me to share here, and why? I will point out that you didn't engage Wiggin's post in any manner that was different from how I engaged with yours. You poked editorially at what he wrote and gassed on a bit in your stream of consciousness way about it reminding you of something else but the only opinion of yours you presented was whether you thought humanity was a good thing or not and there you remained agnostic about its application to population growth or decline. Maybe stop throwing stones from your glass house there?

[LittleFuzzy]

Reset: instead of looking at population in economic terms, why not question if economic terms we've used for generations are the right metrics for a changing population?

Why is growth for growth's sake a good economic model and not just the definition of a cancer cell or ponzi scheme?

It's not, necessarily, but shrinkage just about always requires "hurting" and removal of things which we generally dislike doing. Growth doesn't necessarily require that. Stability doesn't necessarily require it but if it's going to involve change it will. And change happens, period. Growth is the easiest way to incorporate flexibility, elasticity, and dynamic change, all of which are positive things which make the overall system stronger and more durable.

Why should having children be a retirement scheme in a post-agrarian society?

It probably shouldn't, and mostly isn't. Hence the change in family sizes and consequent alterations in population growth/decline profiles being addressed in the thread/

Won't the Baby Boomers (1946-1964) be an outlier in the near future, as they age and die out, and lose their political clout?

Define "near future". It's already started but you're talking about an age cohort that's 20 years in size. Even discounting changes in longevity, that would suggest a minimum of the same span.

Why do we keep using GDP as a measure of a nation's strength, instead of quality of life or standard of living?

Because it can be quantified, and has fairly good correlations with them allowing it to be a suitable proxy.

Also, you can't eat an iPhone or drink sand,

Sure you can. Wouldn't be pleasant or necessarily survivable. . .

so why are the fastest growing places in the US either deserts (AZ, NM, Nevada, Utah) or swamp land infills like Florida...that can't provide or manage potable water?

Because humans are both very smart and very stupid. This was a rhetorical question, yes? We all know the reasons why.

And more crucially -- why do we look at population in such narrow terms; locally or regionally instead of globally?

We don't and aren't. This thread was built on global population and every last bit of its discussion has been addressing it as a global matter. You're letting your stream of conscious get away with you again. *snaps fingers* Focus, GGT.

[Aimless]

You two deserve each other and that's beautiful