4 ms·

I've always wondered if accelerating technological growth is associated with increased population due to a simple statistical effect: if we assume human ingenui

I've always wondered if accelerating technological growth is associated with increased population due to a simple statistical effect: if we assume human ingenuity and intelligence is distributed normally, then with larger populations, humanity gets more right tail geniuses. Which creates more innovation. Which allows more humans to exist on a resource constrained planet. It's a virtuous cycle. If this is true, then what happens to tech growth in the next few decades when global population flattens?

axlee 10y ago
> larger populations > more right tail geniuses. > more innovation Only in the right environment. That's why the modern scientific contribution of, let's say, Israel, is an order of magnitude larger than Nigeria's despite being 20 times smaller. I am also dubious about the implied direct link between "geniuses" and innovation. Is scientific innovation really driven by "geniuses"?
- bkohlmann 10y ago
  That's fair. I suppose genius is anybody with a unique insight that takes action - but that last part may require pre existing societal frameworks. Furthermore, my definition may be so broad as to render it meaningless.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vkou 10y ago
It's not a larger population, it's a larger population of people who can afford to be idle. (Or at least, not spend all of their time working on their day-to-day survival.) It doesn't matter how smart he is, if Einstein grew up to be a subsistence farmer, in a society with low social mobility, he'd die as one.
jabl 10y ago
Well yes, provided those smart people have the opportunity to pursue their intellect. If the vast majority of the people are serfs barely scraping by, and the only people with "idle time" are inbred dunces hanging out at various courts, progress will be very slow (see Europe during the dark ages..).
dredmorbius 10y ago
Short answer: probably not. Mean matters far more than n. You're reminding me of an article which circulated some months back about where the question was: Where do you find the most of the world's tallest people -- in a small country with a tall average population (like Norway or the Netherlands) or in a very large country with a short average population. I don't recall the references and they're not turning up in my archives. It turns out that when you're multiple standard deviations above average, x-bar (mean) matters far more than n (population). Which would suggest that in the race to breed intelligence, you'd do better at raising the mean rather than the n. Another hole punched in the "grow the planet to increase total intelligence" argument.
dredmorbius 10y ago
There are several large populations which aren't particularly associated with accelerating technological growth. I'm suspecting an inverted causality arrow here. At best a confounded one.

axlee 10y ago

> larger populations > more right tail geniuses. > more innovation Only in the right environment. That's why the modern scientific contribution of, let's say, Israel, is an order of magnitude larger than Nigeria's despite being 20 times smaller. I am also dubious about the implied direct link between "geniuses" and innovation. Is scientific innovation really driven by "geniuses"?

bkohlmann 10y ago
That's fair. I suppose genius is anybody with a unique insight that takes action - but that last part may require pre existing societal frameworks. Furthermore, my definition may be so broad as to render it meaningless.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vkou 10y ago

It's not a larger population, it's a larger population of people who can afford to be idle. (Or at least, not spend all of their time working on their day-to-day survival.) It doesn't matter how smart he is, if Einstein grew up to be a subsistence farmer, in a society with low social mobility, he'd die as one.

jabl 10y ago

Well yes, provided those smart people have the opportunity to pursue their intellect. If the vast majority of the people are serfs barely scraping by, and the only people with "idle time" are inbred dunces hanging out at various courts, progress will be very slow (see Europe during the dark ages..).

dredmorbius 10y ago

Short answer: probably not. Mean matters far more than n. You're reminding me of an article which circulated some months back about where the question was: Where do you find the most of the world's tallest people -- in a small country with a tall average population (like Norway or the Netherlands) or in a very large country with a short average population. I don't recall the references and they're not turning up in my archives. It turns out that when you're multiple standard deviations above average, x-bar (mean) matters far more than n (population). Which would suggest that in the race to breed intelligence, you'd do better at raising the mean rather than the n. Another hole punched in the "grow the planet to increase total intelligence" argument.

dredmorbius 10y ago

There are several large populations which aren't particularly associated with accelerating technological growth. I'm suspecting an inverted causality arrow here. At best a confounded one.