3 ms·
> I think you can make an argument that 10 billion humans are more likely to wipe us all out than 10 million I think that argument is weak. Geopolitical instab
by solveit 5y ago
> I think you can make an argument that 10 billion humans are more likely to wipe us all out than 10 million
I think that argument is weak. Geopolitical instability is probably the main threat to us[1], and I think that would be much worse affected by a shrinking population in a world where every policy decision since WWII has been predicated on continued growth.
[1] Unless you think the main threat is unfriendly AI with short timelines, in which case population in 50 years matters much less than whether we can get our shit together in the next decade or so.
- Barrin92 5y agoI think the biggest cause for geopolitical instability is some sort of ecological disaster or global nuclear war and I think that's if anything more likely on a planet with large, young populations rather than smaller, older ones due to intensified resource or territorial competition. People have coined the term 'geriatric peace theory' for the effect that aging populations tend to be remarkably stable politically. Today if you think of who can wipe a few billion of the planet India and Pakistan come to mind, less so Germany or Japan.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y agoItaly has more than 50% (could be wrong, but high number) of population considered old, but politically it hasn't been stable. While writing I'm guessing you mean "externally", but the two things might be related