2 ms·

Despite claiming “a direct and (emphasis added) bidirectional link” exists, you’ve only argued for a link between technological advancement and population size,

Despite claiming “a direct and (emphasis added) bidirectional link” exists, you’ve only argued for a link between technological advancement and population size, and not vice versa. So it would seem we actually agree? (E.g. you don’t seem to be arguing increasing the human population by X% leads to X% technological advancement.) Current human population levels are ecologically unsustainable without several major shifts taking place — Sir David Attenborough counts regulating the human population size among them [1]. [1]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/david-attenborough-warns-planet-cant-cope-with-overpopulation/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/david-attenborough-wa...

shkkmo 5y ago
> Despite claiming “a direct and (emphasis added) bidirectional link” exists, you’ve only argued for a link between technological advancement and population size, and not vice versa. That is not correct. I laid out the effects in both directions.
- atweiden 5y ago
  In that case, could you please expound upon why increasing the human population by X% increases our technological advancement by X%? I must’ve missed where you supported that assertion with facts or evidence.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > There seems likely to be a minimum population that can support the degree of specialization needed for a given level of technological advancement. 50 people can support much smaller degree of specialization than 50 million people can. This should be fairly obvious, so I am not sure why it needs to be restated.
    - atweiden 5y ago
      Granted, having X number of living humans could conceivably be necessary to facilitate the specialization required to bootstrap technological advancement. But even a highly generous take on this would reveal it’s “necessary but not sufficient”. Fundamentally, X number of humans does not equal X level of technology. If an X% increase in population really did in fact lead to an X% increase in technological advancement, then we could e.g. achieve AGI merely by multiplying the number of living humans by some constant.

shkkmo 5y ago

> Despite claiming “a direct and (emphasis added) bidirectional link” exists, you’ve only argued for a link between technological advancement and population size, and not vice versa. That is not correct. I laid out the effects in both directions.

atweiden 5y ago
In that case, could you please expound upon why increasing the human population by X% increases our technological advancement by X%? I must’ve missed where you supported that assertion with facts or evidence.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > There seems likely to be a minimum population that can support the degree of specialization needed for a given level of technological advancement. 50 people can support much smaller degree of specialization than 50 million people can. This should be fairly obvious, so I am not sure why it needs to be restated.
  - atweiden 5y ago
    Granted, having X number of living humans could conceivably be necessary to facilitate the specialization required to bootstrap technological advancement. But even a highly generous take on this would reveal it’s “necessary but not sufficient”. Fundamentally, X number of humans does not equal X level of technology. If an X% increase in population really did in fact lead to an X% increase in technological advancement, then we could e.g. achieve AGI merely by multiplying the number of living humans by some constant.