4 ms·
Absolutely! I think it would be fine to go back to 1 billion, although the transition to a less extensive infrastructure will probably be quite rough. It's good
by esarbe 6y ago
Absolutely! I think it would be fine to go back to 1 billion, although the transition to a less extensive infrastructure will probably be quite rough. It's good that we already started concentrating most of the population in cities. This will help with the transition immensely.
- raducu 6y agoHas the concentration of population in cities helped us in the past when things gotten quite rough?
- esarbe 6y agoThe most important factor in keeping people alive nowadays is infrastructure. We're not self-sufficient anymore and it's pretty delusional to think that we'll be able to move back to some kind of pre-industrial pastoral idyll. We are dependent on high-tech and that's not going to change. The easiest way to make everyone able to participate in that high-tech is to have high-density population centers with little infrastructure benefiting the most people.
- raducu 6y agoThis is only true today because infrastructure is made ridiculously expensive by the same overlord-leaches that benefit from artificial scarcity of real-estate of those overpopulated cities which enslaves people and is driving the birthrate decline. A battery one order of magnitude better than what we have today would obliterate that need for infrastructure. Internet from the sky, VR, remote education, remote(AI) medicine, flying electric cars, compact fusion power, would mean unchaining the whole world from the sociopaths that are running it today, but we can't have that, because the sociopaths at the top like centralization in order to leach off the rest of the world.
- esarbe 6y agoNo, it wouldn't. Nothing but a miraculous fabricator that can power and fabricate itself would obliterate the need for infrastructure. Let's just take one example; VR. For VR, you need VR googles. These need to be produced somewhere, in an industrial mass production because otherwise these VR googles would be prohibitive expensive. That means industrial scale energy production and industrial scale energy transportation and industrial scale energy storage. This industrial scale industry needs to be repaired and upgraded, probably by people. These people need housing, food, education, ... Now take a guess on what you need to provide each and every one of these? Yeah, right; infrastructure. It's a rat's tail. You cannot get a way from infrastructure if you want any kind of technological civilization.
- oblio 6y agoWe've never been in this timeline before. Preindustrial cities can't serve as reference.
- raducu 6y agoWhy? Because the devastation would be unimaginable by preindustrial standards? I don't want it to happen either, but that's not a valid reason why it couldn't happen.
- esarbe 6y agoWhy do we need the infrastructure of cities to survive? Because we are too many people to live off the land like our ancestors were able to do. Also, we lack the knowledge to be self-sustaining. Why are pre-industrial cities not a good model, i.e. why didn't pre-industrial cities provide the protection we have knowadays? Exactly because we were able to leave out pre-industrial cities in times of turmoil. Since we cannot rely on our self-sufficiency to survive, we need to maintain infrastructure to keep us alive. Maintaining infrastructure is cheapest when the infrastructure is used by as many people as possible. Having a widely distributed population requiring well maintained, widely distributed infrastructure will not be possible.