I know this is off topic, but: There are too many of us. If we can't override our survival instinct to multiply (and consume) uncontrollably, then we are at risk of making ourselves extinct. Then there will be none of us.
Probably not none of us, but when the system collapses due to lack of resources the number of humans will drastically fall as well. Kind of like how a forest fire doesn't just immediately disappear when all for he trees are burned, there remain embers burning for days or weeks after.
I believe all genetically possible humans should be brought into existence. If we imagine the set of all genetic combinations that result in something that could be conceivably thought of as “human,” only an infinitesimal fraction of humans will ever be born through traditional sexual recombination. To be born is to win a lottery with astronomically long odds. As biotechnology advances, we will be able to conceive an…
I'm surprised more people aren't saying this is incredibly dumb. Because it is incredibly dumb. Genes do not have intrinsic value, wants or moral standing. Making maximal humans is plausible worldview (not one I agree with), but humanizing more genes is like saying all lines of code deserve to run.
It's like you've backed into the concept of a soul and decided a string of nucelotides was it.
I know this is off topic, but: There are too many of us. If we can't override our survival instinct to multiply (and consume) uncontrollably, then we are at risk of making ourselves extinct. Then there will be none of us.
That may be eventually true, but we're much further from that point than you might think.
The U.S. alone wastes about 141 trillion calories worth of food. It comes out to around 1250 calories per capita.
Feeding the world is a logistics problem right now, not a production problem. And we also have the space for all 7 billion humans with room to spare. I think right now, there's enough for everybody to have about 4 acres.
I know this is off topic, but: There are too many of us. If we can't override our survival instinct to multiply (and consume) uncontrollably, then we are at risk of making ourselves extinct. Then there will be none of us.
That may be true, but this mindset is one of the catalysts for the eugenics movement. Combine that mindset with incredible wealth and a "messiah complex", and we're in for a horrifying future. Probably better to look for ways for a growing population to thrive on the earth, rather than admit defeat to overpopulation.
Don't believe that makes sense. Being human is defined by existing humans. Change the genes too much, it non-human. Not sure how to draw a line.
> Being human is defined by existing humans. That's a philosophy, not a fact. Individuals and organizations define things by all sorts of criteria. eg temporally, consensus and differentiation are just a few. It's not as simple as "we all agree this zebra is a human".
And yet if your philosophy contends that zebras are humans you're either nuts or are getting off on an argument of semantics that is clearly adjacent to the issue everyone is trying discuss.
> The close knit tribe that thrived with cooperation is definitely in its death throes right now Is it? I think there are a lot of social systems that are being tested at the moment, some are failing. There are many developed countries that are improving their cooperation in the current crisis - I'm in one - Australia, there are others that have seemed to come together, and others that have failed abysmally. No doubt…
> I can imagine if you're in a country with a thousand deaths a day, things don't look good. You're obviously referring to the US during the pandemic of 1968-1969, which - as everyone knows - ended the United States forever, because things were so bad in tandem with the severe civil chaos occurring at the time (which was worse than anything going on now in multiple ways). The US never recovered; its superpower status…
Indeed, thats what I meant by "No doubt the ones that have had trouble will examine and regroup, maybe some won't", but I can see how some people who are bunkered down get disheartened. I do wonder though if a system that values the lives of its citizens so poorly should be doing a bit of reflecting, though I admire the positive attitude. I also wonder if maybe we're getting it backwards, from a purely darwinian point of view, a damn the torpedoes full steam ahead attitude probably pays in the long run, though it is nicer to live where not every decision is life and death.
> “Then two technologies were introduced that changed these Maya’s lives and, ultimately, their population: a gas-powered water pump and two gas-powered maize grinders. [..] By 2003, women who started reproducing in the 1970s had eight to 12 children.” Gotta wonder if the women thought that was progress, or not.
> Gotta wonder if the women thought that was progress, or not.
It's not like women don't tend to love children...
I know this is off topic, but: There are too many of us. If we can't override our survival instinct to multiply (and consume) uncontrollably, then we are at risk of making ourselves extinct. Then there will be none of us.
The conclusion appears to be, technology frees up time so women can have more kids, older children help raise younger ones so it scales, and grandparents and the village help too so larger-scale cooperation scales more.
I guess I'm struggling to see what's novel about this. It seems awfully well-established that as food supply goes up because of better technology, populations explode (e.g. twentieth-century Africa) like happens with literally any species anywhere.
I believe all genetically possible humans should be brought into existence. If we imagine the set of all genetic combinations that result in something that could be conceivably thought of as “human,” only an infinitesimal fraction of humans will ever be born through traditional sexual recombination. To be born is to win a lottery with astronomically long odds. As biotechnology advances, we will be able to conceive an…
Would that not be some astronomically large number of humans? Trillions or even more? DNA is huge and there are a lot of different combinations that would vaguely resemble Homo sapiens. I feel like this concept hinges upon the assumption that genetics determine a person, which is not true. In my opinion, it's more important to raise people in all kinds of environments than to have every genetic individual in existenc…
It isn't clear to me if there is enough energy/matter in the Universe for this sort of thing.