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

Selfish reasons to want more humans

rootsofprogress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 480 posts

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#231

Post by zelphirkalt »

throwaway047278 wrote: post #182
adastra22 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"More than a billion" is enough to add the -s in English grammar.

As long as we're in the pedantic mode: "More than a billion" could mean from 1 billion up to 1.99 billion. You need at least 2 billions to be able to add the -s The poster you replied to wrote "so yeah probably less than two billions combine", so that actually means you could not use the "-s" ending in this case.

More than a billion means simply > 1 000 000 000, which can mean anything from 1 000 000 001 to infinity.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#232

Post by alexey-salmin »

Depurator wrote: post #224
alexey-salmin wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't even define "degradation" without humans around. The planet itself doesn't care, nor does the fish. Extending human empathy to non-human processes is peak anthropocentrism.

Or we can assume that the state of the world before humans was a state that we have deviated from though human agency, and it is reasonable to remedy some of that irreversible trajectory would be a good cause that some other intelligent species could undertake after we're gone.

The first known extinction event was caused by cyanobacteria that released vast amounts oxygen (highly toxic chemical) into the atmosphere. It killed most of the anaerobic life, clearly "deviating from the previous state of the world". The time has come to "remedy some of that irreversible trajectory".

The whole notion that the "current trajectory" is somehow objectively bad is ridiculous. It may be bad for humans though.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#233

Post by sokoloff »

caskstrength wrote: post #214
alexey-salmin wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's the case. If you have truly free energy then transformation of matter in whatever you want it to be becomes a purely technological question. And in any case, having spaceships and no avocado is much better than the inverse.

> I don't think it's the case. If you have truly free energy then transformation of matter in whatever you want it to be becomes a purely technological question. Some purely technological problems are hard to solve. There is already a market for (very expensive) meat substitutes and they taste like crap. If you are talking about some sci-fi "replicator" tech that will just "synthesize" you and avocado, then I'm not s…

> There is already a market for (very expensive) meat substitutes and they taste like crap.

Impossible is pretty decent tasting for ground beef substitute, IMO. The pricing is currently not competitive or inline with its utility value, but I could see that changing much faster than any colonize-space or make earth pleasant for 12 billion people projects.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#234

Post by citrin_ru »

collyw wrote: post #189
ozim wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this take. There are so many variables like job availability in area where person wants to live, graduation does not mean one is fit for job, job openings are for experienced positions and openings for recent grads are almost non existent. If there are only openings for experienced people, as a recent grad you take whatever else you can find. Then people just get stuck in whatever they got as first jo…

A lot of STEM jobs are bullshit. Intellectual grunt work. Most people are fixing other peoples bugs rather than building anything innovative. And a lot of the "innovation" in tech over the last years has been a rehash of ideas from the 60s.

Fixing bugs is useful work. A bias against boring maintenance toward innovation is how you end up with crumbling infrastructure.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#236

Post by defrost »

nec4b wrote: post #151
hugh-avherald wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia lags behind other countries in certain technology, but not in mining technology. There's sufficient expertise in a population of a few million. (Of course, there's a disproportionate amount of mining engineering experts in Perth.)

Because they rely on billions of other people to do other things, so they can specialize in mining.

Australia in general, and my specific mining state in particular, over produces food - again with a small population, again with big industrial scale machines.

The thing about technology is it allows fewer people to achieve far more .. including build and maintain more technology per capita.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#237

Post by usrusr »

hilbert42 wrote: post #127

"One argument for a larger population is based on utilitarianism, specifically the version of it that says that what is good is the sum total of happiness across all humans." Utilitarianism doesn't say that 'good is the sum total of happiness across all humans' but rather it says it's 'the greatest good for the greatest number', which is substantially different, so this is a distortion of the facts. I would refer the…

I think your last paragraph sums up the article very well. One question remainins: did the author succeed in convincing himself?

It's a fluff piece based on naming a few patterns that could be used as arguments for more humans, not an exploration of the problem space. For example he does not even mention that one pattern that has accompanied humanity through all of history: population control through war. When it's too crowded for young humans to live like their parents and grandparents did, they are easy to rile up against some other group and then the population level resets.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#238

Post by smitty1e »

jocoda wrote: post #154
smitty1e wrote: post #13

The arguments in the linked article all seem rooted in a traditional Western weltanschauung . This worldview is increasingly characterized (not without basis) as racist, sexist and fascist, mostly by critics whose personal positive contributions to human improvement are unclear. I'm not driving this bus; I just seem to be going under it. Maybe after the societal collapse the survivors can agree that the Critical Theo…

I strongly disagree with the article but what's with the ad hominim? - "...mostly by critics whose personal positive contributions to human improvement are unclear" We're way past population levels where the traditional reaction to dissatisfaction with circumstances lets you pack up your tribe and move away to somewhere else. Everything is fenced in, and we are our own worst enemies. If you are nice or powerless you…

> Right now, it looks more like we're on the way to becoming morlocks and eloi.

Why the ad hominem? not that I disagree with your point (especially with disrespect to the purported elite critics in my original post) but yes: these generalizations can be seen as unfair.

But that is the point of generalizations: they are a shoe fitting a slice of audience.

I tend agree with the article. If you want to know the overarching issue confronting humanity, it is loss of individual liberty coupled with loss of interest in the proper family.

Every ersatz, hedonistic substitute pushed by our purported elite is designed to produce some techno-utopia with a thin globalist ruling class and a controlled, limited population of bipedal livestock.

That is, the world is to be one large plantation run by The Cool People from their Tower of Babel, of whom I am not one.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#239

Post by em-bee »

sokoloff wrote: post #228
em-bee wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but this only goes as far as being able to explain the difference between humans and other animals. it doesn't at all explain the differences between different humans because other factors are so strong that so far we have not been able to isolate genetic differences as a factor in human intelligence. even twin studies have been flawed in this regard.

If we had to wager whether there was any genetic component to intelligence differences among humans, I think the safe wager is on “there is some” over “there is none”.

yes, but i'd also wager that it is completely drowned out by other factors. if genetics improve my intelligence by 1% and teaching can improve it by 10% then what's the point?

those genetics will only be a factor among those receiving no teaching at all, or those who receive the maximum teaching possible. but they will hardly factor in in the middle of the bell curve where every genetic advantage by one person can be outdone by another one putting in more effort. the difference then between you and me will be that your genetic advantage will allow you to reach the same result as me with less effort. there is practically no benefit for you. or the advantage is so small that we won't even notice most of the time. if at all.

any model that relies on genetic advantages as a factor only works if we assume that those naturally more intelligent automatically bubble to the top and are not held back by other factors, all which have the potential to nullify any advantages they may have had

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#240

Post by nerdponx »

silvestrov wrote: post #186
defrost wrote: post #22

More ambitious projects need a certain critical mass of resources behind them. Ancient Egyptian civilization built a large irrigation system to make the best use of the Nile floodwaters for agriculture, a feat that would not have been possible to a small tribe or chiefdom. This doesn't mean people, we're no longer bound by labour intensive solutions. I live in a single state with a tiny population that mines and ship…

If "more people" was always better then India and Africa should be much richer than Europe. A lack of people can be an innovation driver: "hiring people is too expensive, so we have to automate everything", i.e. innovation is a must for survival.

Also if people are starving or otherwise suffering, they probably aren't innovating.

We already have plenty of people. We have a lack of people with the means to live comfortably and invent stuff.

Post reply on HN