4 ms·

I hope it's radically different in 2500, but not the way this author does. We should be able to have 50-100B people, with billions in space, post scarcity, fusi

I hope it's radically different in 2500, but not the way this author does. We should be able to have 50-100B people, with billions in space, post scarcity, fusion based economy by then.

ashtonkem 5y ago
Population is almost certainly going to shrink, largely because most people don’t really want to have a ton of kids once they’re given the option to. The more resources people have, the fewer children they tend to have in fact.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "The more resources people have, the fewer children they tend to have in fact." I dispute this, most people want to own a home and be able to provide for their children, and average age of first-time homebuyer in UK has risen to 33
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    That … doesn’t actually refute my point. People have kids in apartments all the time, always have and always will. Anyways, in country after country we see the exact same pattern; the wealthier the country gets and the lower their infant mortality gets, the fewer children they have. The majority of the world is now below replacement rate; even India is down below 2.2 children per woman, and Mexico is now on the cusp of the replacement rate. Overall the only continent still growing is Africa, as it has the vast majority of the countries with high fertility rates. I expect that to change as Africa develops and gets richer. You might say “aha, but people can’t afford as many kids as they want to in the west, because it’s so expensive”. There is some truth to this; there’s a gap between desired fertility and actual fertility in some countries. But in a lot of countries the number of children women reportedly want has fallen. In America it’s gone from 3.5 to 2.5 in the past century. Yes, women are having fewer children than they reportedly want, but not by a lot. Frankly I think that it's much easier to say you want 3 kids than it is to actually decide to have a third. And that’s before we consider that fertility has fallen off a cliff in countries where having a child is cheaper, and where the state generously subsidizes childbirth and child care. Norway is down to 1.6, Denmark is at 1.7, and so is Sweden. If the issue was cost, surely generous state subsidies would drive up fertility, no? I think the simple reality is that as child mortality falls, parents increasingly begin to view children as something to be invested in, rather than an economic source for the household (in poorer countries) or as a default consequence of marriage and sex. This tips the balance over from parents wanting (or getting by default) big families, to instead smaller families that are easier to manage and that allow greater emotional investment per child.
- elihu 5y ago
  The optimistic scenario is that population expands not primarily through reproduction but because lifespans increase drastically.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  I see your last statement as lacking nuance. Not yet fully complete but many women have options to do/be something other than a mother/homemaker. That will naturally lead to less children. Equally these days, with both parents having to work to make ends meet many couples feel they don't have the resources to support many children. Lastly, modern death rates don't implicitly demand the "have a couple to spare" approach either.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
There will never be post-scarcity because people always want more and better, and the haves will always want to feel better than and differentiated from the have-nots. Can we have 100 billion mega-yachts sailing around? 100 billion private jets, billions of sprawling opulent mansions in each of the most desirable and expensive cities? 100 billion private rocket ships and 100 billion vacation houses on Mars? The impact to other life on earth would just be horrific too. It's already way beyond the point of sustainability. Even if you just magic away the footprint of all primary production and all manufacturing, just having that many people living, producing waste, impacting habitat is my idea of a nightmare. I hope population naturally gradually subsides to some actually sustainable fraction of the current that does not rely on heroics like fusion, asteroid mining, and scrubbing industrial chemicals from the environment. Tens of millions of people, perhaps.
- satellite2 5y ago
  A thousands times less people? It would be excruciatingly boring. Even now at the peak of cultural and technological production it feels really slow (How many really great movies or song per year? Maybe 1 or 2? Mathematical proof? Simply finding an acceptable lover?)
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > A thousands times less people? It would be excruciatingly boring. I don't think it would be. > Even now at the peak of cultural and technological production it feels really slow (How many really great movies or song per year? Maybe 1 or 2? Mathematical proof? To each their own I guess. To me this seems like shallow, vapid passive consumption that is never going to be not-boring no matter how many other people achieve great things while I watch on. Not to denigrate passive entertainment too much and it has its place, but I couldn't think of anything better than if people got sick of it en masse and started getting most of their entertainment from doing things themselves. Write their own proofs, learn an instrument, play in a local sport team, join a theater group and do their own performances, join a pottery group, start wood working or hacking computers, volunteer. > Simply finding an acceptable lover? I'll refrain from taking the cheap shot -- I'm certainly no one-in-one-hundred-billion either :)
mrpopo 5y ago
Why do you wish to have 100s of billions of the same species, when its development obviously thwarts the development of all others?

I hope it's radically different in 2500, but not the way this author does. We should be able to have 50-100B people, with billions in space, post scarcity, fusion based economy by then.

ashtonkem 5y ago

Population is almost certainly going to shrink, largely because most people don’t really want to have a ton of kids once they’re given the option to. The more resources people have, the fewer children they tend to have in fact.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"The more resources people have, the fewer children they tend to have in fact." I dispute this, most people want to own a home and be able to provide for their children, and average age of first-time homebuyer in UK has risen to 33
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  That … doesn’t actually refute my point. People have kids in apartments all the time, always have and always will. Anyways, in country after country we see the exact same pattern; the wealthier the country gets and the lower their infant mortality gets, the fewer children they have. The majority of the world is now below replacement rate; even India is down below 2.2 children per woman, and Mexico is now on the cusp of the replacement rate. Overall the only continent still growing is Africa, as it has the vast majority of the countries with high fertility rates. I expect that to change as Africa develops and gets richer. You might say “aha, but people can’t afford as many kids as they want to in the west, because it’s so expensive”. There is some truth to this; there’s a gap between desired fertility and actual fertility in some countries. But in a lot of countries the number of children women reportedly want has fallen. In America it’s gone from 3.5 to 2.5 in the past century. Yes, women are having fewer children than they reportedly want, but not by a lot. Frankly I think that it's much easier to say you want 3 kids than it is to actually decide to have a third. And that’s before we consider that fertility has fallen off a cliff in countries where having a child is cheaper, and where the state generously subsidizes childbirth and child care. Norway is down to 1.6, Denmark is at 1.7, and so is Sweden. If the issue was cost, surely generous state subsidies would drive up fertility, no? I think the simple reality is that as child mortality falls, parents increasingly begin to view children as something to be invested in, rather than an economic source for the household (in poorer countries) or as a default consequence of marriage and sex. This tips the balance over from parents wanting (or getting by default) big families, to instead smaller families that are easier to manage and that allow greater emotional investment per child.
elihu 5y ago
The optimistic scenario is that population expands not primarily through reproduction but because lifespans increase drastically.
_carbyau_ 5y ago
I see your last statement as lacking nuance. Not yet fully complete but many women have options to do/be something other than a mother/homemaker. That will naturally lead to less children. Equally these days, with both parents having to work to make ends meet many couples feel they don't have the resources to support many children. Lastly, modern death rates don't implicitly demand the "have a couple to spare" approach either.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

There will never be post-scarcity because people always want more and better, and the haves will always want to feel better than and differentiated from the have-nots. Can we have 100 billion mega-yachts sailing around? 100 billion private jets, billions of sprawling opulent mansions in each of the most desirable and expensive cities? 100 billion private rocket ships and 100 billion vacation houses on Mars? The impact to other life on earth would just be horrific too. It's already way beyond the point of sustainability. Even if you just magic away the footprint of all primary production and all manufacturing, just having that many people living, producing waste, impacting habitat is my idea of a nightmare. I hope population naturally gradually subsides to some actually sustainable fraction of the current that does not rely on heroics like fusion, asteroid mining, and scrubbing industrial chemicals from the environment. Tens of millions of people, perhaps.

satellite2 5y ago
A thousands times less people? It would be excruciatingly boring. Even now at the peak of cultural and technological production it feels really slow (How many really great movies or song per year? Maybe 1 or 2? Mathematical proof? Simply finding an acceptable lover?)
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > A thousands times less people? It would be excruciatingly boring. I don't think it would be. > Even now at the peak of cultural and technological production it feels really slow (How many really great movies or song per year? Maybe 1 or 2? Mathematical proof? To each their own I guess. To me this seems like shallow, vapid passive consumption that is never going to be not-boring no matter how many other people achieve great things while I watch on. Not to denigrate passive entertainment too much and it has its place, but I couldn't think of anything better than if people got sick of it en masse and started getting most of their entertainment from doing things themselves. Write their own proofs, learn an instrument, play in a local sport team, join a theater group and do their own performances, join a pottery group, start wood working or hacking computers, volunteer. > Simply finding an acceptable lover? I'll refrain from taking the cheap shot -- I'm certainly no one-in-one-hundred-billion either :)

mrpopo 5y ago

Why do you wish to have 100s of billions of the same species, when its development obviously thwarts the development of all others?