Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The world might run out of people

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 202 posts

Re: The world might run out of people

#131

Post by simplecomplex »

handzbagz wrote: post #101
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.

That's precisely why I don't want them. I don't feel it's worth the time and effort.

Who do you plan on taking care of you when you get older? You’re going to pay nurses, and maybe live in a retirement home?

Re: The world might run out of people

#132

Post by pixl97 »

EGreg wrote: post #39
Robotbeat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slowing of the birthrate to manageable levels is very good, but too much of that (i.e. below replacement) leads to an inverted age pyramid, which is NOT unambiguously good. The fact that birthrates are falling and many countries will be left with a huge number of elderly folk without enough young folk to take care of them is not unambiguously good, particularly when it happens everywhere so there's nowhere to imp…

An inverted age pyramid can be just fine if automation picks up the slack and causes productivity per capita to soar. The great thing about automation is that it’s always improving, never going back (except when old equipment gets retired). Once Tesla improves feature X it’s rolled out to all cars at once, for instance.

> if automation picks up the slack and causes productivity per capita

This is only true if the income disparity is not out of control. Current trends show us that income disparity is increasing where the super rich gain everything, and the poor are screwed without some kind of income redistribution (high wealth taxes for example).

Re: The world might run out of people

#133

Post by iguy »

exergy wrote: post #113
jlawson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 outsid…

He obviously means "capacity to do good" as in capacity to keep a high-tech society running, and continue making technological improvements. He cares both about the cream of the crop for the next generation of cancer drugs (or computers), and the solid middle for being able to run modern accounting, retail supply chains, large-scale farming.

Obviously "doing good" often means other things too, like calling your mom, and volunteering at a soup kitchen. Morally good. I think it's pretty clear from context that this isn't what he's talking about.

Re: The world might run out of people

#134

Post by rainworld »

exergy wrote: post #113
jlawson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 outsid…

High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities.

Absolutely not. IQ correlates well with a number of desirable characteristics, for individuals as well as groups.

education, role models, etc

These things don't matter nearly as much as people like to think.

roll of a dice

A dice that appears to be consistently biased in favour of those with high test-solving abilities?

Re: The world might run out of people

#135

Post by est31 »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #129
est31 wrote: post #53

This is indeed the leading theory about where the world will be heading over the next couple of decades. But I think the answer really depends on the culture of subpopulations. In the USA for example, republican ruled states have more babies than democrat ruled states [1]. Or in israel, the fertility rate of the orthodox haredi minority is very high with 6.9 children per woman in 2017 (children not childbirths) compa…

One might point out that orthodox-religious and Republican children are a major source of liberals.

Exactly, that's what I've meant with "conversion of the conservative mindset towards liberalism". Liberal groups have high capabilities of converting conservative people towards them while conservative groups have high capabilities of reproducing.

I don't worry about liberals for that reason: the more conservatives, the larger the pool of people they can convert to their ways. Liberalism originated in a world that was far more conservative than the conservatives we have today, and they still managed to get where we are now. I'm definitely not worried.

Re: The world might run out of people

#136

Post by polskibus »

ryandrake wrote: post #128
polskibus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

From a purely economic standpoint, treating kids like a retirement investment seems absurdly risky compared to the alternative. According to this link [1] the average cost of raising a middle class child to age 18 is $233,610. Plus the average cost of a 4 year out of state university [2] $36,420 equals $270,030. That’s $12,274 a year for 22 years. Let’s say instead you put that into a pre tax IRA earning 6%. At the e…

This model may work when you don't have a kid but most people do (ie the size of the workforce is stable). It does not account for situations where workforce drops by large % and there are much more retirees than workers.

Re: The world might run out of people

#137

Post by pixl97 »

_bfhp wrote: post #55
thousandautumns wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not unambiguously good news. There are several countries such as Japan and Sweden that are looking down the barrel of inverted population pyramids in their immediate future and the consequences are expected to be dire. Yes, overpopulation can and should be a concern, but underpopulation should be one as well, and already is for pockets of the world.

Have we ever seen this happen to a drastic degree in recent times? If so, what happened? Who says that governments couldn't address a crisis, when they often involve themselves heavily in crises the economy, bailing out banks and so on. If a modern government can force every young person to to join the army for the ostensible "defense of the nation" (e.g. Israel) , why not force them to take care of old people?

>If a modern government can force every young person to to join the army.

"Joining the army" and "Fighting a battle every day" are two different things. Most of the time armies are not doing anything. And when they are, it is a significant threat to ones continued existence, something humans are highly optimized to fight for.

Keeping the old people alive has a few problems. First, if you take grandma to the roof and throw her off, it does not directly affect your continued existence (unless you consider law enforcement action, but we'll leave this out for now). In this case you are economically better having a geriatrics purge. Second, taking care of old people is insanely depressing. Throwing most people to these terrors is just going to increase the suicide rate in young people.

Third, and separately, how does the government 'force'? Right, they take young men with guns and point said guns at the population. So you're telling me that the larger old population is going to vote to tell part of the young population to take guns, point them at the other young population and have them take care of the old one. Um, so you want to have a revolution, ya ya.

Also, young (working age) people create wealth. Old people consume it. Where is this government going to get its tax dollars from?

Re: The world might run out of people

#138

Post by est31 »

simplecomplex wrote: post #131
handzbagz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's precisely why I don't want them. I don't feel it's worth the time and effort.

Who do you plan on taking care of you when you get older? You’re going to pay nurses, and maybe live in a retirement home?

Alzheimers patients need 24/7 care. This isn't something that small families with 3-4 siblings can do by reasonable means next to having a job, raising the next generation, and living in the neighbouring town or even further than that. In the old days, poor people just died young because of exhaustion and rich people well they have the means for proper care per definition.

Re: The world might run out of people

#139

Post by jpetso »

magduf wrote: post #97
pqokdwpokqp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Full of stupid, and impulsive, and likely religious zealots, They are so stupid, yet everyone else let themselves be out-bred by them? I think if that happens in the long-term, it more or less suggests "religious zealots" have adapted better.

It's not stupid to be "out-bred": you're enjoying your own personal life more by keeping more resources for yourself, rather than sacrificing your time and resources on kids with the goal of continuing your family line. Your kids, grandkids, and descendants aren't likely to be of much help after you're dead. This is an individual vs. society issue: having few kids is better at the individual level, but for society it…

One may argue that if you expand "for society" to a worldwide "for humankind", it's perfectly sustainable not to have kids at the current population level.

I think it's a safe assumption that those with religious dogma and those in regions of high child mortality will continue to have many kids, one way or another. The "educated" non-religious class is probably the only one that has a real choice to make. If they keep up reproducing at 2.1x replacement level while everyone else exceeds that level, the worldwide population is just going to continue to grow and then we're in real trouble.

I'm perfectly happy to let "my society" be taken over by "the other kind" who out-reproduced me and my peers. One way or another, we'll have to stop growing as a species, and one group's excesses have to balanced out by another group's shortfalls.

Re: The world might run out of people

#140

Post by mzybert »

bantunes wrote: post #91
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…

> 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.

Why on earth would I "suck it up" when I can just never make any children?
Post reply on HN