5 ms·

IIRC from when I heard this story on This American Life, the women in the running were already having a lot of babies and didn't exactly require much encouragem

IIRC from when I heard this story on This American Life, the women in the running were already having a lot of babies and didn't exactly require much encouragement to keep on keeping on. But I found the whole story depressing, many people take creating more people so lightly and often their belief system embraces a blanket "more is always good/better" stance.

thinkloop 6y ago
> "more is always good/better" stance It might be the ultimate endeavor. Right now we live in relative scarcity, so resource gathering dominate our culture. But imagine a thousand years from now when robots produce everything, and material is plenty. What do we do then? What's our purpose as a species? A good candidate is striving to maximise healthy and dignified earthly life across the universe.
- konjin 6y ago
  >ANYONE who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite universe is either a madman or an economist A nice video that goes in depth about how people just don't have an intuition about exponential growth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqcHG7QUK9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqcHG7QUK9k
  - skissane 6y ago
    > > ANYONE who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite universe is either a madman or an economist Of course it is true that in a finite universe, exponential growth can only continue for a finite amount of time. But that time could easily be far longer than you or I will live to see. We could be centuries, millennia, maybe even millions of years, away from the peak. The peak of human civilisation might be the point at which every inhabitable (or feasibly terraformable) planet in the galaxy has been colonised. (That assumes that intergalactic travel will never be feasible – an assumption which is probably true, but we can't be certain about it.) Peak galactic colonisation could easily be several million years hence–if we ever get there. Of course, we could quite easily annihilate ourselves a whole lot sooner than that, or interstellar colonisation could turn out to be permanently technologically or economically infeasible, or a bunch of other possibilities. But that's the thing, nobody knows where the peak is, worst case scenario is we could be living in it right now, best case scenario is it could be millions of years into the future, and lots of possibilities in between those two extremes.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      What makes you see the interplanetary scenario as bettet than the stay-on-earth scenario?
      - drdeca 6y ago
        More lives that are worth living, presumably. Also, aesthetic. Also, reduced chance of extinction (before each given point in time).
      - skissane 6y ago
        Better? As in a value judgement? I wasn't talking about that. I am simply talking about when humanity reaches peak exponential growth. Staying on the one planet, it has to happen a lot sooner than if we colonise other planets in the solar system and then go on to colonise other star systems as well. With galactic colonisation, the peak could easily be millions of years away. Without it, the peak has to be a lot sooner than that.
    - Negitivefrags 6y ago
      And on that fated day, as the last planet in the galaxy is colonised, finally, the Tesla bears will be vindicated.
- kergonath 6y ago
  First, we need to get to 100 years from now without a collapse in our technological abilities, which is not a given considering how bad our general understanding of science and technology is at the moment. History shows that whatever our “purpose as a species” is, those with more power will want to take more from those without. This is incompatible with “maximis[ing] healthy and dignified earthly life” for most of the population. And there is nothing to be optimistic about; this won’t change in a century or a millenium.
Guthur 6y ago
Well most developed nations have dropped below replacement rate on new births with population growth only sustained by immigration. We'll likely soon seen what the "less is more" looks like for new people, I'm not optimistic.
- jojobas 6y ago
  The problem is that the people having most babies is exactly who you don't want to have any. Religious fundies, alcoholics, generally uneducated. Huge mistakes were made some time ago and there's no recovery in sight.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 6y ago
    Not within individual societies. While there is less research into men's fertility and education, in developed countries evidence suggests that highly-educated men display higher levels of childbearing compared to less-educated men. Education however reduces women’s fertility.
    - nine_k 6y ago
      Education allows women to hold prestigious and well-paid jobs, leaving less time on child-rearing.
      - jojobas 6y ago
        Yep, removing their genes from the future generations. Worth it I guess. The people that built the modern world voluntarily phase themselves out.
        nine_k 6y ago
        Not necessarily removing, but making them more rare. A modern woman may have one or two children, but for going above the replacement rate, a number of them should have at least three. This quickly becomes a full-time job.

thinkloop 6y ago

> "more is always good/better" stance It might be the ultimate endeavor. Right now we live in relative scarcity, so resource gathering dominate our culture. But imagine a thousand years from now when robots produce everything, and material is plenty. What do we do then? What's our purpose as a species? A good candidate is striving to maximise healthy and dignified earthly life across the universe.

konjin 6y ago
>ANYONE who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite universe is either a madman or an economist A nice video that goes in depth about how people just don't have an intuition about exponential growth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqcHG7QUK9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqcHG7QUK9k
- skissane 6y ago
  > > ANYONE who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite universe is either a madman or an economist Of course it is true that in a finite universe, exponential growth can only continue for a finite amount of time. But that time could easily be far longer than you or I will live to see. We could be centuries, millennia, maybe even millions of years, away from the peak. The peak of human civilisation might be the point at which every inhabitable (or feasibly terraformable) planet in the galaxy has been colonised. (That assumes that intergalactic travel will never be feasible – an assumption which is probably true, but we can't be certain about it.) Peak galactic colonisation could easily be several million years hence–if we ever get there. Of course, we could quite easily annihilate ourselves a whole lot sooner than that, or interstellar colonisation could turn out to be permanently technologically or economically infeasible, or a bunch of other possibilities. But that's the thing, nobody knows where the peak is, worst case scenario is we could be living in it right now, best case scenario is it could be millions of years into the future, and lots of possibilities in between those two extremes.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    What makes you see the interplanetary scenario as bettet than the stay-on-earth scenario?
    - drdeca 6y ago
      More lives that are worth living, presumably. Also, aesthetic. Also, reduced chance of extinction (before each given point in time).
    - skissane 6y ago
      Better? As in a value judgement? I wasn't talking about that. I am simply talking about when humanity reaches peak exponential growth. Staying on the one planet, it has to happen a lot sooner than if we colonise other planets in the solar system and then go on to colonise other star systems as well. With galactic colonisation, the peak could easily be millions of years away. Without it, the peak has to be a lot sooner than that.
  - Negitivefrags 6y ago
    And on that fated day, as the last planet in the galaxy is colonised, finally, the Tesla bears will be vindicated.
kergonath 6y ago
First, we need to get to 100 years from now without a collapse in our technological abilities, which is not a given considering how bad our general understanding of science and technology is at the moment. History shows that whatever our “purpose as a species” is, those with more power will want to take more from those without. This is incompatible with “maximis[ing] healthy and dignified earthly life” for most of the population. And there is nothing to be optimistic about; this won’t change in a century or a millenium.

Guthur 6y ago

Well most developed nations have dropped below replacement rate on new births with population growth only sustained by immigration. We'll likely soon seen what the "less is more" looks like for new people, I'm not optimistic.

jojobas 6y ago
The problem is that the people having most babies is exactly who you don't want to have any. Religious fundies, alcoholics, generally uneducated. Huge mistakes were made some time ago and there's no recovery in sight.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 6y ago
  Not within individual societies. While there is less research into men's fertility and education, in developed countries evidence suggests that highly-educated men display higher levels of childbearing compared to less-educated men. Education however reduces women’s fertility.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Education allows women to hold prestigious and well-paid jobs, leaving less time on child-rearing.
    - jojobas 6y ago
      Yep, removing their genes from the future generations. Worth it I guess. The people that built the modern world voluntarily phase themselves out.
      - nine_k 6y ago
        Not necessarily removing, but making them more rare. A modern woman may have one or two children, but for going above the replacement rate, a number of them should have at least three. This quickly becomes a full-time job.