The world might run out of people • Hacker News Board

Re: The world might run out of people

#111

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

polskibus wrote: post #102

magduf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't fully explain why humans don't want to have a lot of kids. Have you ever been around kids? They're really a pain in the ass, especially if they're boys. (For instance, as a single guy, I'm far more likely to be interested in dating a single mother with girls than one with boys; little boys are just too destructive and disobedient.) Smart people aren't having so many kids now because they don't have to. I…

I hear this argument quite often : "Smart people aren't having so many kids now because they don't have to." Depends on what you're counting on in the future. If you want to be taken care of when you're older, and almost no one has children, then your future is bleak no matter how much you earn now. Inflation will eat most of your savings that you'd want to spend on care. Of course there's immigration or you can move…

Another option is assisted suicide or suicide once you can't take care of yourself.

Re: The world might run out of people

#112

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #107

idrae wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you hover over Africa you'll notice that the steepness of the lines is much lower than the rest of the world. Extrapolating from the lines I'm guessing they'll end up at 3-4 children instead of the ~2 children that most of Asia and Europe have.

No, they will end up at 2 or below when some form of long term stability is eventually reached. The political-economic situation, from outside nations messing with to internal corruption, explain a lot about its current birthrate. China's current investment into Africa at this time may eventually bring the economic stability to many of these area. That said I'm not sure I'd want China enforcing my long term cultural…

China's 'investment' in Africa doesn't benefit Africa, from what I understand. They build entire towns of imported Chinese labor and take all the money out. Last I read about it.

Re: The world might run out of people

#113

Post by exergy » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:22 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #92

Nav_Panel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a terrible quote, horrible in the sense of reducing Man to the sum of his capability to build ever greater machines. Surely intelligence bears no relation to goodness! I find Spandrell (and Land, who helped popularize the idea) atrocious.

You're mixing up goodness as in deserving, vs goodness as in capacity to do good. Spandrell never said anything like smart people are more deserving. He says smart people have more capacity to accomplish things which most people consider good. E.g safety, comfort, health, stability, wealth - and not just for themselves but for others too. Hard to argue with as far as I can see.

'Capacity' to do 'good' (even per your definition) is so strongly reliant on the environment that one exists in, that I do not think you can defend your position in a rational manner. I also find it mildly offensive that your comment, and that of Spandrell, implies that smartness is measured only in IQ. High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities.

What's more, people living in poor countries and outside of cities aren't 'incapable' of doing good. They are often poorly educated, lack role models, lack good parenting, lack a good peer group, and fundamentally, lack opportunity and a financially stable childhood. Virtually all of it is structural injustices thrown their way through the roll of a dice.

Re: The world might run out of people

#114

Post by misja » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

rainworld wrote: post #71

Quoting Spandrell: At this moment, every single human population with an IQ over 95 has a fertility rate below replacement; and the places where the most intelligent and productive people tend to live, big cities, have generally fertility rates below 1. Not below 2, replacement, but below 1, half of replacement. As I’ve said again and again, big cities today are IQ shredders, where the genes that code for high intell…

Even though intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility rate, it is positively correlated with survival rate of offspring. The net effect is not clear.

Apart from that, when you differentiate between men and women, the correlations turn out to be different: while women still have a negative correlation, for men the correlation between IQ and fertility rate turns positive.

See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

Re: The world might run out of people

#115

Post by itronitron » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:24 PM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #17

joshuacc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone who wants more than 2.1 kids is stupid, impulsive, or a religious zealot? That seems unlikely.

No, but it is true that groups with higher birth rates in spite of having middle class lifestyle tend to be religious. there are lots of stupid, impulsive religious zealots with quiverfuls. But also a lot of wonderful, loving religious folks with quiverfuls. I wish there were more other types who had a birthrate above replacement, but outside of religious circles, having more than 2 kids is rare and even considered u…

>> it is true that groups with higher birth rates in spite of having middle class lifestyle tend to be religious.

I doubt that very much, that has not been my experience, my colleagues, or my relatives.

In fact, I wouldn't even agree with the point that religious people tend to have bigger families.

Re: The world might run out of people

#116

Post by ghtrytttttnsa » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

jackfrodo wrote: post #83

rainworld wrote: post #71

Quoting Spandrell: At this moment, every single human population with an IQ over 95 has a fertility rate below replacement; and the places where the most intelligent and productive people tend to live, big cities, have generally fertility rates below 1. Not below 2, replacement, but below 1, half of replacement. As I’ve said again and again, big cities today are IQ shredders, where the genes that code for high intell…

My understanding is that Spandrell considers himself a "race realist." Please don't bring right-wing racist thought into HN.

Please don't bring those ridiculous and naive leftist thoughts into HN.

Re: The world might run out of people

#117

Post by ggggtez » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #34

Robotbeat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same argument that has been used for decades and centuries to worry about population explosion, though. Was that mere book selling? We've now seen a trend of below replacement in places like Japan lasting for decades now, and they've luckily been able to change their society to be more welcoming to immigrants in order to compensate, but that only works if there are countries with higher birth rates to com…

Or climate change? (Ducks) PS: I realize now that people downvote not based on the content of the post or the argument but based on whether they don’t think the argument should be made because they dont like the conclusion .

I downed this because you posted 4 words with no thought or reasoning behind it. The lack of thought and self awareness that this is a discussion forum, not Reddit, is why this is downvoted.

Re: The world might run out of people

#118

Post by stephenhuey » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

GrinningFool wrote: post #100

bantunes wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you ever been around kids? They're really a pain in the ass, especially if they're boys. Suck it up. What, do you want having kids to be as seamless as an Uber Eats order? It's not. It's hard work. I'm sure your parents gave up on a lot to have you, too. That's part of being an adult.

> Suck it up. What, do you want having kids to be as seamless as an Uber Eats order? It's not. It's hard work. I'm sure your parents gave up on a lot to have you, too. That's part of being an adult. Seems wiser to remain childless than to have and raise kids that you never wanted. How would that work out for the kid, otherwise? Or are we going on the assumption that once the kid is born, OP will no longer see it as a…

There's something to be said for that. My kids do require a lot of attention and work and I sometimes I feel very tired out and short on time to get things done before crawling into bed for enough sleep to be productive at the office the next day. However, even though I really enjoy creative technology work at my job, on average my relationships with my kids give me greater satisfaction than any projects I work on. Maybe not everyone would feel the same way after having kids, but for a lot of us parents I think it's a natural thing that occurs within us that's very helpful for motivating one to give love and care towards a child amidst myriad other demands. I've heard many other parents confirm that they feel something they had never felt before, and that definitely pushes us through the tough times when parenting and provides a lot of enjoyment that might have been difficult to imagine beforehand.

Re: The world might run out of people

#119

Post by aetimmes » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #92

Nav_Panel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a terrible quote, horrible in the sense of reducing Man to the sum of his capability to build ever greater machines. Surely intelligence bears no relation to goodness! I find Spandrell (and Land, who helped popularize the idea) atrocious.

You're mixing up goodness as in deserving, vs goodness as in capacity to do good. Spandrell never said anything like smart people are more deserving. He says smart people have more capacity to accomplish things which most people consider good. E.g safety, comfort, health, stability, wealth - and not just for themselves but for others too. Hard to argue with as far as I can see.

Smart people also have equally as much capacity to accomplish things which most people consider bad.

Capability and goodness are generally orthogonal.

Re: The world might run out of people

#120

Post by pixl97 » Wed, Feb 06, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

_bfhp wrote: post #44

whack wrote: post #2

Our economy and intellectual progress is massively predicated on specialisation of labor. When I consider any single aspect of our life, even something as "simple" as how elevators work, it's astounding the amount of complexity that goes into it. Complexity that we can handle because we divvy it up amongst many many people who are completely specialized in understanding and fulfilling that task. Gradual increases in…

Can you give an example of why this is bad? What more do we really need in terms of technology, to survive as nations and be happy? Could this point in our achievement be enough? Maybe a drought of elevator specialists decreases the amount of elevators we can have. We have to walk up stairs more often. Not ideal. But maybe more people spend less time having and raising kids and more time working on themselves. Mental…

>What more do we really need in terms of technology, to survive as nations and be happy?

What timeline are we talking about.

> Could this point in our achievement be enough?

To ensure eventual extinction, yes.

Modern technology is wholly dependant on a great number of unstable and unsustainable systems. Fossil fuels are the best example of a great technological boost that is destroying our atmosphere. Renewables, while so much better, are not without their drawbacks at a world civilization size. Still, it could create a nice, clean, and happy doomed world.

Below us vast volcanoes, things not seen for tens of thousands of years, wait to explode below us threatening to blot out the sun for a decade (hope you don't depend on solar panels). Above us rocks the size of mountains race through the blackness of space at insane speeds waiting to find a gravity well and vaporize what is at the bottom of it. There exists threats, ones we've only come to realize exist in the past century, that can wipe mankind off earth in the blink of an eye. The solution to most of these is making sure we just aren't on earth, and become a spacefaring civilization. For that we will need technology far beyond what we have now.