3 ms·

> Any constructive discussion is welcome. I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem. The only clearly stated problem tha

by fifnir 7y ago

> Any constructive discussion is welcome. I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem. The only clearly stated problem that I've seen is how social security will likely crumble since the fewer younger people won't be able to support the large aging population. But this ignores how productivity has been and will continue to rise thanks to machines. I think we can easily take care of an aging population if we make proper use of new technology. In fact I think that reducing our numbers is necessary for our survival. We live in a capitalist world, where constant growth is assumed and expected, but the earth is a relatively closed system and you know what happens with bacteria in closed systems? They reproduce until they exhaust the system's resources and then they all die.

chr1 7y ago
That's a poor analogy, unlike bacteria we keep finding more and more efficient ways of using resources we have. And more importantly we can colonize deserts, ocean and nearby planets. So we have space for quite a few doublings before facing any real problems with population size.
koonsolo 7y ago
> I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem. It's not really a problem, it survival. Not having kids is not really a problem, but the fact is that you genes will die along with you. Same for culture. Your own culture dying might not be a problem, but it means that your values will die along with it. Having equality between individuals is something to strive for (in my western opinion), but does this same value mean that your culture will die out, together with its values? Another culture might survive, because they have less 'favorable' values.
- fifnir 7y ago
  > you genes will die along with you I get it, this is why I haven't already had a vasectomy, but your genes are nothing special, just a sample of the alleles in the population. I'm much more concerned about producing ideas that will outlive me and spreading those. Newton died a virgin yet he profoundly influenced the world. Similar with cultures, ancient greeks are long gone but their culture shaped the world.
  - koonsolo 7y ago
    Yes, I definitely agree. Genes are only 1 aspect of what can be passed on. But the question here is: Will the value of "men and women should fulfill the same roles in society" survive or die out?
    - fifnir 7y ago
      Firstly, I would phrase the value as "People should not be restricted in the roles they can fulfill in society" (I don't think anyone serious(ly) argues that everyone should do exactly the same). And no I don't think that this value is under threat from other cultures just because they reproduce more. The value didn't get established in society because the people who held it reproduced more. Also, those who oppose it won't necessarily continue to reproduce more forever. Atheists have smaller fertility rates than any religion, yet atheism is spreading more and more
paulryanrogers 7y ago
> But this ignores how productivity has been and will continue to rise thanks to machines. While true for most of recorded, human history; that kind of assumption combined with hard limits like physics make your second point a more likely outcome. Unless you're suggesting humanity will re-engineer itself into a more sustainable form. EDIT: forced typo
- fifnir 7y ago
  Maybe I should have said efficiency instead of productivity ?

by fifnir 7y ago

chr1 7y ago

That's a poor analogy, unlike bacteria we keep finding more and more efficient ways of using resources we have. And more importantly we can colonize deserts, ocean and nearby planets. So we have space for quite a few doublings before facing any real problems with population size.

koonsolo 7y ago

> I want to attack the premise that a shrinking population is inherently a problem. It's not really a problem, it survival. Not having kids is not really a problem, but the fact is that you genes will die along with you. Same for culture. Your own culture dying might not be a problem, but it means that your values will die along with it. Having equality between individuals is something to strive for (in my western opinion), but does this same value mean that your culture will die out, together with its values? Another culture might survive, because they have less 'favorable' values.

fifnir 7y ago
> you genes will die along with you I get it, this is why I haven't already had a vasectomy, but your genes are nothing special, just a sample of the alleles in the population. I'm much more concerned about producing ideas that will outlive me and spreading those. Newton died a virgin yet he profoundly influenced the world. Similar with cultures, ancient greeks are long gone but their culture shaped the world.
- koonsolo 7y ago
  Yes, I definitely agree. Genes are only 1 aspect of what can be passed on. But the question here is: Will the value of "men and women should fulfill the same roles in society" survive or die out?
  - fifnir 7y ago
    Firstly, I would phrase the value as "People should not be restricted in the roles they can fulfill in society" (I don't think anyone serious(ly) argues that everyone should do exactly the same). And no I don't think that this value is under threat from other cultures just because they reproduce more. The value didn't get established in society because the people who held it reproduced more. Also, those who oppose it won't necessarily continue to reproduce more forever. Atheists have smaller fertility rates than any religion, yet atheism is spreading more and more

paulryanrogers 7y ago

> But this ignores how productivity has been and will continue to rise thanks to machines. While true for most of recorded, human history; that kind of assumption combined with hard limits like physics make your second point a more likely outcome. Unless you're suggesting humanity will re-engineer itself into a more sustainable form. EDIT: forced typo

fifnir 7y ago
Maybe I should have said efficiency instead of productivity ?