3 ms·
> Despite claiming “a direct and (emphasis added) bidirectional link” exists, you’ve only argued for a link between technological advancement and population siz
by 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 agoIn 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 agoGranted, 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.