241–250 of 480 posts
That’s just making up numbers. The author has shown absolutely no basis for the argument that for every million people born, one of them will be a genius with the intellect and opportunities to advance humanity and offset the harm of the other 999999 and then some.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OP also claims that growth is possible indefinitely. But somehow, we need more humans to to have critical resources necessary to execute some projects. The contradiction is lost on the OP author.
This is true only to some degree, there are always limits to growth. These limits are actually very far away, most of the trouble is caused by the funny rationing/commons depletion system we call capitalism. The predicted 10-12 billion humans should have more than enough everything. We don't because capital and access are rationed.
> The carrying capacity of the planet is not fixed, but a function of technology; and side effects such as pollution or climate change are just more problems to be solved. As long as we can keep coming up with new ideas, growth can continue. There are a lot of big ifs in this statement.
Carrying capacity can also be temporarily distorted. How much effective carrying capacity would we see if tomorrow there suddenly were not any hydrocarbons from the past? Yeah, I'm old enough to remember "peak oil", that time when we knew full well about the greenhouse effect, but enjoyed distracting us with doomsday scenarios about not enough "new" oil getting prospected.
"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…
That's why the author mentions "specifically the version" of utilitarianism which does sum happiness across people (it's called Total Utilitarianism, by contrast with Average Utilitarianism). "The greatest good for the greatest number" is ambiguous, later thinkers have parsed it out in different ways.
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…
Those arguments are addressed in the second paragraph:
> Historically, as we run out of a resource (whale oil, elephant tusks, seabird guano), we transition to a new technology based on a more abundant resource—and there are basically no major examples of catastrophic resource shortages in the industrial age. The carrying capacity of the planet is not fixed, but a function of technology; and side effects such as pollution or climate change are just more problems to be solved. As long as we can keep coming up with new ideas, growth can continue.
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…
> no weight at all is given to the downsides of truly challenging levels of resource extraction currently at play to meet the high consumption demands of a small proportion of the large population we already have on the planet. Those arguments are addressed in the second paragraph: > Historically, as we run out of a resource (whale oil, elephant tusks, seabird guano), we transition to a new technology based on a more…
The current pressures global populations face due to water access and increased insulation in the atmosphere are not ones that can be magically waved away by technology in short order as population increases and increases the scale of those issues.
Of course there are other challenges, but those two suffice for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
My garden grows based on light, CO2, macro nutrients, and water. We don’t say “CO2 is not a factor in plant growth because deficits in water, nutrients, and light can prevent it from showing in overall outcome.”
https://rootsofprogress.org/unsustainable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no weight at all is given to the downsides of truly challenging levels of resource extraction currently at play to meet the high consumption demands of a small proportion of the large population we already have on the planet. Those arguments are addressed in the second paragraph: > Historically, as we run out of a resource (whale oil, elephant tusks, seabird guano), we transition to a new technology based on a more…
Not addressed well or at depth. The current pressures global populations face due to water access and increased insulation in the atmosphere are not ones that can be magically waved away by technology in short order as population increases and increases the scale of those issues. Of course there are other challenges, but those two suffice for now.
People saying "he doesn't address the downsides" could read the three pages on the same site which do address the downsides, and which are prominently linked right at the start of the essay: https://rootsofprogress.org/unsustainable https://rootsofprogress.org/catastrophic-resource-shortages https://rootsofprogress.org/can-growth-continue-ignite-talk
"The question of severe externalities is interesting and difficult, but let’s set it aside for the moment."