2 ms·

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

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
Having more people around you doesn't make you meet more people, quite the opposite in fact. I have lived in a 10-million metropolitan city for 5 years and literally made 0 true friends. All mega-cities are packed with people with no deep social life. On the other hand, if you live in a 1000-person village with only 10 people in your age range, you are much more likely to try bonding with them.
elihu 5y ago
I think quality of life would be higher on average with a lower population, but that's an interesting point that certain products are more sustainable with a large population. Things like software, music, and movies have very low marginal cost and most of the production cost is just in making the first version. If you're JK Rowling and write Harry Potter, you make twice as much money and readers derive twice as much enjoyment from the books in a world with twice as many people, if all else is equal. Currently we don't allocate resources very efficiently when it comes to the creation of so-called intellectual property. With a much smaller population, we'd presumably have to be smarter about it if we want large volumes of high-quality content.

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

Having more people around you doesn't make you meet more people, quite the opposite in fact. I have lived in a 10-million metropolitan city for 5 years and literally made 0 true friends. All mega-cities are packed with people with no deep social life. On the other hand, if you live in a 1000-person village with only 10 people in your age range, you are much more likely to try bonding with them.

elihu 5y ago

I think quality of life would be higher on average with a lower population, but that's an interesting point that certain products are more sustainable with a large population. Things like software, music, and movies have very low marginal cost and most of the production cost is just in making the first version. If you're JK Rowling and write Harry Potter, you make twice as much money and readers derive twice as much enjoyment from the books in a world with twice as many people, if all else is equal. Currently we don't allocate resources very efficiently when it comes to the creation of so-called intellectual property. With a much smaller population, we'd presumably have to be smarter about it if we want large volumes of high-quality content.