[SolarCross]

For every 1000 people, you will get the variety needed to perform all jobs.

No that is completely false.

The overall population does not change this. To believe a population of 7 billion creates smarter people than a population of 1 million is nonsense.

It doesn't make individuals smarter but it does make the network of people smarter. Each person is an information processor and implementer so the more people the more information can be processed and implemented. There is some slack because there are idle or ineffective people who could be eliminated without loss of processing power but not so much as you think.

The only scenario where technology growth can continue with severly reduced human population is where the technology becomes sentient and takes over but then the technology will stop being something people do and become an independent life system of its own.

[One Degree]

No that is completely false.



It doesn't make individuals smarter but it does make the network of people smarter. Each person is an information processor and implementer so the more people the more information can be processed and implemented. There is some slack because there are idle or ineffective people who could be eliminated without loss of processing power but not so much as you think.

The only scenario where technology growth can continue with severly reduced human population is where the technology becomes sentient and takes over but then the technology will stop being something people do and become an independent life system of its own.

Based on that reasoning, the industrial revolution was impossible. I will even grant increased population might speed technology, but so what? It will still happen. What’s the hurry if we destroy ourselves in the process? We could eliminate 6 billion people and there would be no loss of technology.

[Steve_American]

The technology needs technologists and specialists, it needs people. If you reduce the population then you reduce the quantity and quality of specialists and technologists and so the technology stops improving, can't be implemented or supported and even becomes forgotten. I am pragmatist, never an idealist.

SC,
I have less respect for the quality of your ideas than you do for mine.
You assume a rapid growth in technology, yet as of now it seems that tech growth has stagnated. Except maybe for AI.
I propose a mechanism to jump start tech growth and your response is --- who needs that? Tech will take off and shoot up any day now.
You assume facts that are not in the evidence and blithly assume that my worst case will not happen, because of 'reasons'.
Yet you expect everyone else to accept your pie in the sky pollyanna nonsense.
If we carry on with business as usual for another 20 years, the worst case becomes much, much more likely. meaning your descendants will all die a horrible death. And you don't care enough to lift your little finger 1 inch to avoid that.

[Steve_American]

Based on that reasoning, the industrial revolution was impossible. I will even grant increased population might speed technology, but so what? It will still happen. What’s the hurry if we destroy ourselves in the process? We could eliminate 6 billion people and there would be no loss of technology.

That may be true but it may not.
It depends on who decides which 6B people die, and which people those 6 B are .
Pol Pot showed us how to do it. Just kill everyone who can read and write, drive a car, wears glasses, or otherwise is part of modern tech.
If we do that then SC is right.
It also matters how nature does the killing. If nature's method is to get humanity to go into an all out nuclear war then, what does that do to your rosy picture? Nuclear war seems likely as we struggle to avoid the worst case applying to "us".

[SolarCross]

Based on that reasoning, the industrial revolution was impossible. I will even grant increased population might speed technology, but so what? It will still happen. What’s the hurry if we destroy ourselves in the process? We could eliminate 6 billion people and there would be no loss of technology.

No based on my reasoning the industrial revolution depended on the increased population due to the preceding agricultural revolution... You are thinking of technology as an abstract ghost that exists independently in some platonic space but it isn't it is what people do and the more people the more doing is possible and each doer supports the doings of others. A top brain surgeon is only able to specialise his time to the extent he can because there are millions of people in a supporting technology network doing everything for him from mining the metal for his scalpels, casting his latex gloves, making filters for his morning coffee, making logistical calculations for the thousands of products and services he interacts with on a daily basis, oiling the machine that makes the soap he uses to wash his hands etc etc. If you start shooting people in the back of the head and dumping their bodies in mass graves then their doing dies with them and the top brain surgeon will be demoted to a GP and if enough people die off he will be demoted to a leech dispenser.

[One Degree]

That may be true but it may not.
It depends on who decides which 6B people die, and which people those 6 B are .
Pol Pot showed us how to do it. Just kill everyone who can read and write, drive a car, wears glasses, or otherwise is part of modern tech.
If we do that then SC is right.
It also matters how nature does the killing. If nature's method is to get humanity to go into an all out nuclear war then, what does that do to your rosy picture? Nuclear war seems likely as we struggle to avoid the worst case applying to "us".

My solution is heartless, but I feel the most practical. Strict adherence to ‘net zero’ immigration. Many advanced countries show signs of negative population growth. Do not relieve the pressure on those who haven’t by allowing them to immigrate. They either control their own births or they suffer. A ‘divide and conquer’ plan. No foreign humanitarian relief efforts.

[One Degree]

[quote="SolarCross"]No based on my reasoning the industrial revolution depended on the increased population due to the preceding agricultural revolution... You are thinking of technology as an abstract ghost that exists independently in some platonic space but it isn't it is what people do and the more people the more doing is possible and each doer supports the doings of others. A top brain surgeon is only able to specialise his time to the extent he can because there are millions of people in a supporting technology network doing everything for him from mining the metal for his scalpels, casting his latex gloves, making filters for his morning coffee, making logistical calculations for the thousands of products and services he interacts with on a daily basis, oiling the machine that makes the soap he uses to wash his hands etc etc. If you start shooting people in the back of the head and dumping their bodies in mass graves then their doing dies with them and the top brain surgeon will be demoted to a GP and if enough people die off he will be demoted to a leech dispenser.

https://brain-surgery.com/history-of-brain-surgery-1/

Brain surgery was done extensively in 2000 BC. No offense, but I see the current modern idea that all suffering being eliminated is a necessity as unrealistic. How important is it to prolong life if you already have too many people? This is humanitarian idealism conflicting with reality. If you want more people, get us off the planet.

[SolarCross]

Brain surgery was done extensively in 2000 BC. No offense, but I see the current modern idea that all suffering being eliminated is a necessity as unrealistic. How important is it to prolong life if you already have too many people? This is humanitarian idealism conflicting with reality. If you want more people, get us off the planet.

Did they have MRI machines? Cybernetic implants? There is a difference between banging holes into people's skulls to let out the evil spirits and wiring hearing aids directly to the brain.

There is no idealism here just the fact that technology depends on people, the more people the more technology and the less people the less technology. Getting off planet will require people, a medieval population level can't do it.

Your problem is that you conceive of people as just mouths to feed, which they are, but they are also hands that work... They produce as well as consume. If you reduce the numbers of consumers you also reduce producers, unless you only target the most useless people (I did say there was some slack).

[One Degree]

Did they have MRI machines? Cybernetic implants? There is a difference between banging holes into people's skulls to let out the evil spirits and wiring hearing aids directly to the brain.

There is no idealism here just the fact that technology depends on people, the more people the more technology and the less people the less technology. Getting off planet will require people, a medieval population level can't do it.

Are you young?
I am old and have lived without all these technological marvels. I really don’t see all that much benefit to the human experience. Especially the medical. I think the return on investment is ridiculous. I think cell phones are the only significant improvement.

[Godstud]

I really don’t see all that much benefit to the human experience. Especially the medical. I think the return on investment is ridiculous.

What??? Are you kidding? People's life expectancy has risen drastically, thanks to medical science. Quality of life has also increased due to new medical technology.

You have likely benefited greatly from medical science and you don't even know it.

[SolarCross]

Are you young?
I am old and have lived without all these technological marvels. I really don’t see all that much benefit to the human experience. Especially the medical. I think the return on investment is ridiculous. I think cell phones are the only significant improvement.

Mid forties. Everyone who ever existed managed without some potential technology. Neolithic people managed without even the most basic farming technology. By your logic we could just as well return to the stone age. But it seems you are beginning to concede to the reality that technology is proportionately dependant on population but have decided that reduced technology is a sacrifice worth making for the cause of genocidal misanthropy.

[One Degree]

What??? Are you kidding? People's life expectancy has risen drastically, thanks to medical science. Quality of life has also increased due to new medical technology.

You have likely benefited greatly from medical science and you don't even know it.

So, why is it important that I benefited? It did not change the human ability to experience life and create new life. I am very serious. I don’t think we should not pursue better health and medicine, but I think the importance we place on it is way out of proportion to what we should want.

[Godstud]

Why shouldn't we want long and healthy lives for ourselves and our children? You don't make any sense.

[Crantag]

I have a modest proposal.

We can create slaughter houses for the poor and feed them to the rich.

Better yet, maybe we can use technology to convert their bodies to fertilizer to raise soybeans to feed the rich a balanced vegan diet.

In reality speak, people are going to keep reproducing, exponentially. It is a pressing issue, but idealizing population control is not working to a solution at all.

[One Degree]

Mid forties. Everyone who ever existed managed without some potential technology. Neolithic people managed without even the most basic farming technology. By your logic we could just as well return to the stone age. But it seems you are beginning to concede to the reality that technology is proportionately dependant on population but have decided that reduced technology is a sacrifice worth making for the cause of genocidal misanthropy.

That technology won’t be too important if people are starving. Saying we need more people to produce technology to let us have more people seems rather self defeating. Every person you add reduces the resources available. The end result is inevitable. Every house you build is land lost to food, mining, etc., not to mention all the additional jets, ships, and cars.

@Godstud
All I can tell you is I would be horrified for society to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep me alive a couple extra years. I’m not that important.

[Rancid]

I'm banking on technology to save us. Carbon capture machines galore! Thess machines would have to be powered by solar energy of course. Or nuclear.

[SolarCross]

That technology won’t be too important if people are starving. Saying we need more people to produce technology to let us have more people seems rather self defeating. Every person you add reduces the resources available. The end result is inevitable. Every house you build is land lost to food, mining, etc., not to mention all the additional jets, ships, and cars.

Hands that work not just mouths to feed. More people means more resources are produced as well as consumed. The resource limits are soft and surmountable, even land, because it can be reclaimed from the sea, made in the sea and found off world. The universe has virtually unlimited raw materials, the only shortage is in hands and minds.

[One Degree]

Hands that work not just mouths to feed. More people means more resources are produced as well as consumed. The resource limits are soft and surmountable, even land, because it can be reclaimed from the sea, made in the sea and found off world. The universe has virtually unlimited raw materials, the only shortage is in hands and minds.

So why are people still starving? The flaw seems to be the failure to deliver on technology’s promises. I understand politics is interfering but that is still a hurdle technology can’t overcome. If we haven’t done it with past smaller populations, where does the belief come that the future will be different? If we haven’t done it yet, it is unlikely we will tomorrow.

[SolarCross]

So why are people still starving? The flaw seems to be the failure to deliver on technology’s promises. I understand politics is interfering but that is still a hurdle technology can’t overcome. If we haven’t done it with past smaller populations, where does the belief come that the future will be different? If we haven’t done it yet, it is unlikely we will tomorrow.

Most people aren't, virtually no one is in the "developed world". The starving people where they exist at all are among the least technological people on the planet. Where their starvation is mitigated it is by flying in the surplus food of technological people.

Compare today with the year 0AD:

0AD = total pop under 1/2 billion, % of pop in danger of starvation 95%
2000AD = total pop over 8 billion, % of pop in danger of starvation 5%

If your concern is starvation then more people and more technology would seem to be a solution. Remember more people means more hands and minds not just more mouths.

[One Degree]

Most people aren't, virtually no one is in the "developed world". The starving people where they exist at all are among the least technological people on the planet. Where their starvation is mitigated it is by flying in the surplus food of technological people.

Compare today with the year 0AD:

0AD = total pop under 1/2 billion, % of pop in danger of starvation 95%
2000AD = total pop over 8 billion, % of pop in danger of starvation 5%

If your concern is starvation then more people and more technology would seem to be a solution. Remember more people means more hands and minds not just more mouths.

Our ‘helping’ starving people has demonstrated how ineffectual we are in understanding what needs done and how nature is the key, not us. The Aswan dam should be a constant reminder of how little we understand.
Your 95% starvation rate is highly doubtful. 1/2 billion people could survive from hunting and gathering. Any farming at all makes the figure unbelievable.