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

261–270 of 480 posts

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#261

Post by mensetmanusman »

em-bee wrote: post #174
vunderba wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it certainly does not. Obviously, a higher socioeconomic background means increased resources and dedicated attention to education which certainly helps, but genius, in the true sense of the word needs a good starting foundation, and that probably has a significant genetic component. Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Ramanujan were all child prodigies without exceptional access to tutors and other educational resources. If…

i don't agree with the genetic argument but with your other point. producing geniuses is not a billion dollar industry because we don't yet even know how to teach to that. but that doesn't mean that we could not improve teaching and peoples potential massively. china used to have a billion dollar tutoring industry (ok, i don't know if it was a billion, but china is huge so it's possible) until a change of laws shut i…

It was aimed at improving performance on state mandated standardized tests. They were effective, but if everyone did them, the curve was just shifted and no one seemed to benefit in particular (but society is arguably better off if everyone is higher IQ).

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#262

Post by pseudocomposer »

synecdoche wrote: post #216
strangattractor wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2 most prominent proponents of this idea happen to have the resources (money) that will allow them to avoid most of the downsides a larger population would create. Great for them bad for me. There are plenty enough geniuses in existence today. They cannot be utilized because they live in shitty conditions created by the too large population we already have. As others have pointed out consideration of of negative…

How about providing concrete methods for reducing population? Exactly how do you propose to reduce population and who should be forced to not have children first? Should we assume that you will lead by example?

Why should anyone be forced not to have kids? We could all have one and the population would halve in a generation.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#264

Post by FredPret »

gherkinnn wrote: post #197
darth_avocado wrote: post #41

The population already exists. But we don’t see that many geniuses working on ambitious projects because they are working minimum wage jobs or wasting away without education in Africa, India, China, or downtown LA. We don’t have a population problem, just a utilization problem.

And in other parts of the world, geniuses are found, educated, only to waste away optimising ads on websites.

You make fun of click-through rates because it sounds stupid and irrelevant.

Now, I’m not saying it’s like building the pyramids, inventing General Relativity, or landing on the moon.

And yes we all hate ads and 99% of them are junk.

But online ads have been revolutionizing the economy. Matching consumers and producers have always been extremely non-trivial and an economically critical activity.

You used to have to go to the mall to discover and buy things. That mall was a huge gatekeeper for producers trying to offer goods on the market and a major point of inefficiency. Now anyone can put up ads and start selling with a vastly smaller distribution budget.

Just think of having a small percentage multiplier on the entire economy. Just think of the implications for social equity - you used to have to be well-connected and well-funded to have any hope of starting a business and getting into Walmart.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#265

Post by em-bee »

sokoloff wrote: post #247
em-bee wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I disagree with the last paragraph. If there are four factors that all combine to create an outcome, we don’t ignore factor 1 just because factors 2-4 can nullify any advantage. 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.”

but that depends on how large the factor actually is. if it were 10% or more, then sure. but the fact that the very existence of a genetic factor is put into question, suggests that the factor, if it exists, is so small that it really is negligible.

another reason why we can ignore a genetic factor is that we can not influence it. or, that trying to influence it carries serious ethical implications.

it is also to small to serve as a tool to predict future performance.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#266

Post by GrumpySloth »

sebmellen wrote: post #257
silvestrov wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your reasoning is just historically uninformed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populatio... . There are at least a few generations of lag time between a population boom and economic effects, but Europe's former population size (and density) was the key to its current prosperity. France would likely be more populous and therefore richer than Germany, had it not secularized earlier and thereby reduce…

Industrial revolution was the key to Europe’s current prosperity. Without it, it was going in the direction of mass starvation, because old farming methods weren’t able to sustain the growing population. The increased population would have been a disaster without the industrial revolution.

It’s the reason England crushed China, even though England’s population has always been microscopic in comparison to that of China.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#267

Post by em-bee »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #261
em-bee wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i don't agree with the genetic argument but with your other point. producing geniuses is not a billion dollar industry because we don't yet even know how to teach to that. but that doesn't mean that we could not improve teaching and peoples potential massively. china used to have a billion dollar tutoring industry (ok, i don't know if it was a billion, but china is huge so it's possible) until a change of laws shut i…

It was aimed at improving performance on state mandated standardized tests. They were effective, but if everyone did them, the curve was just shifted and no one seemed to benefit in particular (but society is arguably better off if everyone is higher IQ).

that was what they were selling, but apart from the problem of everyone doing it, there were also many shady operations to outright scams that never even intended to provide the value they promised.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#268

Post by amenhotep »

adastra22 wrote: post #94
nine_k wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real gentlemen start with themselves. Not having children is one such choice.

I sincerely hope that in 50 years when the concern over population growth has been shown to be misguided, just as it has in the last 200 years since Malthus predicted the Earth could only support a few hundred million people, you won’t be sad and alone regretting a missed opportunity.

It seems to me that you guys inadvertently expose a kind of fundamental selfishness when you post like this. Like, it sounds as if a significant part of your reasoning on having children is the belief that you are creating a person who will be biologically obligated to like you and fulfil your emotional needs - thereby saving yourself from being sad and alone.

I don't think it's common for child free people to share this belief. I would even hazard a guess that for many this train of thought is more associated with how they feel about pressure from their own parents to fulfil their emotional needs by creating more new people.

That kind of self-interested argument doesn't land very convincingly on people who feel that their future state of being sad and alone or not is their responsibility and nobody else's.

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#269

Post by savingsPossible »

throwaway047278 wrote: post #178
nine_k wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are still bound by labor amount, but now it's mostly the intellectual labor. The amount of thinking happening in the world depends on the amount of human brains available, and their level of education and knowledge, in the widest sense. Solving current challenges faster is often only possible by applying a larger amount of thinking to them. (No, the AI is not yet a game changer here.)

> The amount of thinking happening in the world depends on the amount of human brains available, and their level of education and knowledge It seems to me that most of today's high impact "minds" come from relatively wealthy families compared to the world's average. They come from a small pool of candidates, compared to the vast world population as a whole that don't have the same opportunities. We basically throw aw…

Agree up to the last paragraph

In the genius funnel, the article argues to increase intake, you are arguing to enlarge the 'goes to school' step.

Porque no los dos?

Re: Selfish reasons to want more humans

#270

Post by osigurdson »

kelnos wrote: post #91
osigurdson wrote: post #54

How about instead of telling people to have more kids or less kids, we let them do whatever they feel like?

Because people do irresponsible, selfish things, and in many cases fail to consider how their actions can negatively impact others. Not saying that having more or fewer or no kids is going to have a negative impact. But if it was important for humanity to encourage more or fewer or no kids, I think it's pretty natural that there would be campaigns (funded by governments and NGOs alike) to push people in the direction…

Who decides if something is "important for humanity"?
Post reply on HN