Selfish reasons to want more humans

Post by martindbp » Sun, Feb 25, 2024, 3:31 PM UTC

jaysonelliot wrote: post #317

This is an absolutely terrifying perspective. The planet can realistically support about one billion human beings. It was only the Haber–Bosch process in the early 1900s that made it possible to grow enough food to maintain the 8 billion humans we have today. At the time, it seemed like an incredible humanitarian advance, feeding so many more people than before, and providing higher profits for farmers, boosting the…

Post by lukas099 » Sun, Feb 25, 2024, 3:31 PM UTC

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.

Post by pixl97 » Sun, Feb 25, 2024, 3:33 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #305

nerdponx wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is not necessity the mother of invention?

Post by lukas099 » Sun, Feb 25, 2024, 3:33 PM UTC

usrusr wrote: post #220

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.)

And the amount of productive thinking is depending on the fraction of the total sum that goes into zero sum games like advertising and finance. No, I'm not saying that those don't have any utility, they do, but that utility has a clear "good enough" limit and more brains trying to maximise their piece of the pie does not make the pie any bigger.

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Sun, Feb 25, 2024, 3:35 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #307

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…

> They cannot be utilized because they live in shitty conditions created by the too large population we already have. Or they just live in a shitty place under some autocratic/dictator/religious rule. I'm not sure that has much to do with the population size.