Live data from Hacker News

Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

docs.google.com

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

#71

Birth rates for humans are self-regulating, like with any other animal population. We are nearing the point of saturation of how many people the current environment can bear. Good. If there will be some mass extinction, or new resources available, birth rates will increase accordingly. No need for intervention here.

This. I wish more people realised there were about 200 million humans on the planet during the Roman Empire's existence. Nobody was worrying about eugenics or world crises.

What I'm worrying about is raising children in a continually prohibitive and hostile world where we sacrifice the quality of life in the name of the environment and financial frugality. What's the point? Where is the incentive to reproduce?

Humans will not disappear naturally. Anyone who's seen a Lotka-Volterra model will not be surprised we haven't reached equilibrium. There is no equilibrium. There is no infinite growth.

Re: Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that "Declining birthrates alarmists are essentially sponsoring the great replacement theory" is one of the reasons we put together this document. Demographic collapse as a risk (and related risks related to declining populations) deserves to be explored from a non-racially/religiously motivated angle. Just because some racially/religiously motivated groups care about a problem does not mean that everyone wh…

> We merely attempt to take a sober approach to issues around population decline and potential solutions. Sober..."The Demographic Apocalypse". Also what population decline? You and I will both be dead before the peak is even in.

We do think that demographic collapse can be "an event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale." There was, admittedly, internal debate about using alarmist language in the title, though, and we appreciate the criticism (everything in this document is subject to change based on feedback).

We care about what happens to humanity after we die. We acknowledge that not everyone does. No judgment there. This document is more relevant to people who care about what happens to humans beyond their own personal lifespans.

Re: Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

#73
post #67
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a black man in Africa, I had not realized that this was not an obvious subtext until I read your comment. Is it not?

A lot of people haven't developed the muscle to look at anything discussing "demographics" extremely critically.

Exactly. Perhaps one of the biggest barriers slowing down solutions to problems caused by demographic collapse = people not being willing to discuss demographic collapse merely because some racist/religiously extreme groups refer to demographic shifts in some of their arguments.

Just because hitler self-identified as a vegetarian doesn't mean that other people who self-identify as vegetarians condone Hitler's views.

Re: Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

#74

...maybe if didn't work so hard to make our socity into a hypercompetitive hellhole intelligent and educated people would also start having more children! Give people guranteed free life-time education from daycare to university + some standard of free universal healthcare (sure, you'll have to pay for your antiaging, but not for a broken leg!) and more people will enjoy having more children. Maybe engineer the world…

> ...maybe if didn't work so hard to make our socity into a hypercompetitive hellhole intelligent and educated people would also start having more children!

If they're so educated and intelligent, why don't they opt out of that?

Re: Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

#75

...maybe if didn't work so hard to make our socity into a hypercompetitive hellhole intelligent and educated people would also start having more children! Give people guranteed free life-time education from daycare to university + some standard of free universal healthcare (sure, you'll have to pay for your antiaging, but not for a broken leg!) and more people will enjoy having more children. Maybe engineer the world…

While this argument makes intuitive/emotional sense, it's not the case that humans start having more kids once they can finally "chill t f out"—though I totally understand where you're coming from. In practice, populations in actual hypercompetitive hellholes, where they're not just competing for a job/status/basic financial solvency, but literally for their food security, physical safety, etc., are those which are h…

> populations in actual hypercompetitive hellholes, where they're not just competing for a job/status/basic financial solvency, but literally for their food security, physical safety, etc., are those which are having more kids

That's the problem we should solve. We don't want just "more children". We want "more children in the environments where there are resources available for their proper development". The "more children" in places like you describe problem is currently solved by more polytical instability, more war, more disease etc..

> "make raising kids cheaper/easier" and "make life easier" are not interventions proven to boost birth rates

Nothing's proven until you run an experiment to f prove it! You're the perfect example of "thinking prfoundly, but in the wrong direction" - under the whole flawed paradigm of "social science" you take the problems to be solved as "implacable natural tendencies" and from this you build flawed arguments against why the actual problems to be solved "can't be solved".

> The pretty-much-universal trend appears to be that once people become more educated and comfortable, they stop having kids above repopulation rate.

That's the freakin problem you need to solve, not a "trend" to placidly observe. We need to run experiments on multiple ways to alter/reverse this human behavior that's not natural but a product of the nasty society we've build for ourselves. OK, it was a price for a faster evolution towards post-industrial stage, but now we can tweak it and adjust the externalities.

We might want to start with the fact that people are rarely "educated and comfortable". Education often makes people slaves of social-loops where they need to work harder to keep the higher status they've got used to and so on. Most higher educated people are more stressed and less happy than lower education people. We need to give people stuff like "job tenures" etc. to create stability - the lower class people actually have this stability by virtue of being "rock bottom", eg. "it's hard to fall any lower down the social ladder, so at least you can lay back and feel good and comfy about it, with whatever rationalizations you can concoct, then start having some kids to get a feel of meaning in life, yey!".

We need to think active social engineering not passive social-"science". We've sold ourselved a bunch of feel good stories about "how things are" in our "society", instead of realizing that society is nothing but a mechanism with thousands of levers we can start tweaking until we get better outcomes...

Re: Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

#76

...maybe if didn't work so hard to make our socity into a hypercompetitive hellhole intelligent and educated people would also start having more children! Give people guranteed free life-time education from daycare to university + some standard of free universal healthcare (sure, you'll have to pay for your antiaging, but not for a broken leg!) and more people will enjoy having more children. Maybe engineer the world…

> ...maybe if didn't work so hard to make our socity into a hypercompetitive hellhole intelligent and educated people would also start having more children! If they're so educated and intelligent, why don't they opt out of that?

...bc (1) educated != intelligent, and (2) intelligence is highly multidimensional, maybe the "dumb" people are the ones more intelligent in the dimension of intelligence requiring to "figure out they should opt out".

Also, in general very vey few people are "meta-socially intelligent" and the few that are are semi-psychopaths in positions of power so they probably enjoy the hell out of riding this hellish social machine.

Re: Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

#77
post #60

...maybe if didn't work so hard to make our socity into a hypercompetitive hellhole intelligent and educated people would also start having more children! Give people guranteed free life-time education from daycare to university + some standard of free universal healthcare (sure, you'll have to pay for your antiaging, but not for a broken leg!) and more people will enjoy having more children. Maybe engineer the world…

Ah yes, the old “More from the fit, less from the unfit” view of reproduction. Where “fit” of course is “like me.” There’s a long history of this sort of eugenics.

It's eugenics when you force it. It's social engineering when you alter the incentives/rewards landscape to get better outcomes. And it's... evolution when nature does it anyway.

Just labeling it as generically "bad" and charicaturising it in a way that bundles it with other despicable tendencies like maybe racism brings no insight to the discussion. Only muddies the waters and makes the whole discussion stupider.

Re: Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

#78
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is NOT a view expressed in the document (nor is it a view held by its authors). One of the key risks this document highlights is the risk that many populations, which contribute helpful diversity and different perspectives to the world, go extinct before people find a way to sustain them (e.g. Koreans, Japanese, Jains, Parsi, Emirates, Tanka, Macanese, Taiwanese, Italians, etc.). This is not about "I want the 'g…

I was not replying to the document, but to catchclose8919's comment where he advocated "handing extra child care support to educated people in helthy societies and contraception to the others."

"Handling contraception" is almost zero cost (so can even be done in bad economie where stuff like child support can't work) and is about choice, not forcing anyone to do anything!

If you want to play the "contraception is eugenics" card, have fun with whatever ultra-cristian uneducated mid-american audience you find for that...

Re: Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's... unpredictably far away! We suck so bad at estimating these kinds of things, that whether it's tomorrow or 500 years from now, I'm convinced we'll be totally surprised, unprepared, and our nor even sincere effort to stear things down a good path (eg. OpenAI and such...) will be either worthless or detrimental! We should simply pursue "organic growth" eg. grow as much people as we can care for and educate prope…

"Unpredictably far away"—nice way of putting it. Whether we "need" humans depends on where one's values are; for those who would like humans in some form to continue to exist, the idea of AGI making humans obsolete isn't terribly comforting. Even those who might really like the idea of humans sort of evolving into AI (and eventually ceasing to biologically exist) might not be keen to rush toward human obsolescence if…

I only care about makind sure that all essential and valuable human characteristics, perspective, thought patterns and values get carried on to whatever the next thing is :) Extinction of bio-humans can be perfectly fine if it happens without information loss imo.

EDIT+: Counterintuitively, it might be more benefficial to have way more people in the (maybe short) era before the passing of bio-humans, to increase the probability that as many as possible of the valuable human ideas get passed on to our AGI descendents! If AGI is finally achieved by eg. "three middle aged white guys surviving some apocalypse in some bunker", then that AGI will only have and carry on the values and mindsets of those "three middle aged white guys"!!! Ironically, "unification under one umbrella of AGI research efforts" like eg. OpenAI folks try to do increase the likelihood the "three middle aged white guys fathering a narrow-minded AGI", instead of encouraging a diversified competition landscape...

We seem to be handling the upcoming birth of AGI just as well as we "handled" this pandemic...

Re: Why falling birthrates might be a bigger deal than dominants narratives imply

#80

Outside of high-tech solutions (external wombs, anti-aging) there's one social: a totalitarian country forcing women to have kids. The only country I could see it happening is China. In the absence of one of the three solutions, technological civilization will peak this century. It's not poverty or culture that leads to not having kids, it's industrialization. Any culture that automates agriculture to a sufficient le…

> Any culture that automates agriculture to a sufficient level will eventually go extinct in the absence of a technological solution Sample size: zero. Apart from that I doubt a society should reduce agricultural and horticultural occupations to zero. This is not healthy. We're already using by far too much machinery in developed countries.

>Sample size: zero.

By that logic it's impossible to say that any species is going extinct before it actually disappears.

The entire developed world is slowly going extinct, and drastic changes are needed to stop that. Some countries like South Korea are collapsing faster than others.

I'm not saying humanity itself will go extinct - because the industrial civilization will collapse first, stopping the demographic collapse - but under the current trend the culture will be gone, most likely viewed as degeneracy of the arrogant ancients.

Post reply on HN