5 ms·

Thank you for saying this. I fully agree. In order to keep everyone fed and happy, and sustainable, we need fewer everyones.

native_samples 5y ago
No, it's the opposite. Happyness comes from wealth, more or less. Economists are pretty much in agreement on that and their case is strong. Wealth in turn is basically "population * technology", where "technology" is broadly defined and also depends somewhat on population. If population goes down wealth goes down, life gets harder, people get less happy. Pretty simple. Consider that in a low population world it's probably not worth being a computer programmer, because the demand for your physical labor would be higher.
52-6F-62 5y ago
Starting with whom?
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Starting with attrition, no one is saying we should kill people and you know it.
  - 52-6F-62 5y ago
    I didn't imply we should kill anyone. If that's your read into it, that's on you. What I mean to highlight about what's stated above is that it's always someone else who shouldn't have children, or someone else who shouldn't exist so that you† and yours† have it better going forward. You must understand how that is fundamentally problematic. Kind of akin to "you should not drink water, so that I may not run short in the future". It's especially ironic to me that these kinds of opinions tend to come from the wealthiest, most materially-excessive societies on the planet. God forbid we just gear down together. † general, abstract 'you'
- genericone 5y ago
  With increasing robot productivity level, those under that rising level/threshold will not be allowed to raise children, should they have them. Those children will be raised by people of the highest productivity percentile. /s
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  It seems like the unborn.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    You mean fetuses?
  - 52-6F-62 5y ago
    Indeed, but who has to be forced to have fewer children than they’d like? I wish I could have afforded children when I was younger. I guess I’m one of those these elevated minds have decided should not get to do that their children can have a better life. I don’t actually take it personally, but that is what’s happening here from a perspective that isn’t their own. I don’t think our problem is scarcity. I believe our problem is living in excess.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      You're making a very valid point. In the US at least, incentives are low (not zero... There's the child tax credit, but how does that stack up against an economy where two-person households work 39.5 hours each to stay in place?)
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Starting with having fewer children, which appears to shady be happening via mostly-uncoerced process(1). (1) Debatably. Plenty of room for disagreement. Point is, we don't have to remove anyone if we just don't replace them.
- MikeTheGreat 5y ago
  Starting with the elderly, as they naturally pass away by virtue of being human, and being old. No-one is suggesting that we actively kill people. The article is talking about attrition (rates of reproduction are declining - fewer people are being born and the people who are here naturally age & die) From TFA: "The next stage of the demographic transition, after a drop in mortality, is a subsequent drop in fertility (although the relationship isn’t straightforward). Family sizes fall from 5 to 6 down towards replacement level. But then they drop further — and never come back. Indeed across most of the world, outside of sub-Saharan Africa, family sizes are still shrinking, and populations ageing."
  - 52-6F-62 5y ago
    I wasn’t asking “TFA”. This is a discussion, isn’t it?
- Victerius 5y ago
  The lawyers.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Not forcing people to be parents when they don’t want to be seems like a good place to start. Giving kids (heck, adults, too!) the resources they need to avoid becoming parents (if they so chose) seems like another. Ending tax exemptions for religious organizations (who historically oppose the above and encourage having more children so as to grow their follower count) could be another easy place to start.
  - 52-6F-62 5y ago
    Definitely sounds like a good place to start if you’re any to simply reduce the number of people. But is that really the problem, or just the most expedient solution to a subset of minds?
closeparen 5y ago
It really is the case that some people cannot be happy while there are too many other people -- they need to live on enormous properties and drive huge gas-guzzling trucks at high speeds without ever meeting any traffic or parking contention. The presence of neighbors genuinely diminishes their well-being. From both a geometry and energy perspective, not too many people can have this life. But it's also the case that a lot of people are happy living in Manhattan and taking the subway. Billions more people could have this life if we allowed it. I think people whose preferences are incompatible with the vast majority of their fellow humans being alive, need to take one for the team here.

native_samples 5y ago

No, it's the opposite. Happyness comes from wealth, more or less. Economists are pretty much in agreement on that and their case is strong. Wealth in turn is basically "population * technology", where "technology" is broadly defined and also depends somewhat on population. If population goes down wealth goes down, life gets harder, people get less happy. Pretty simple. Consider that in a low population world it's probably not worth being a computer programmer, because the demand for your physical labor would be higher.

52-6F-62 5y ago

Starting with whom?

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Starting with attrition, no one is saying we should kill people and you know it.
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  I didn't imply we should kill anyone. If that's your read into it, that's on you. What I mean to highlight about what's stated above is that it's always someone else who shouldn't have children, or someone else who shouldn't exist so that you† and yours† have it better going forward. You must understand how that is fundamentally problematic. Kind of akin to "you should not drink water, so that I may not run short in the future". It's especially ironic to me that these kinds of opinions tend to come from the wealthiest, most materially-excessive societies on the planet. God forbid we just gear down together. † general, abstract 'you'
genericone 5y ago
With increasing robot productivity level, those under that rising level/threshold will not be allowed to raise children, should they have them. Those children will be raised by people of the highest productivity percentile. /s
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
It seems like the unborn.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  You mean fetuses?
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  Indeed, but who has to be forced to have fewer children than they’d like? I wish I could have afforded children when I was younger. I guess I’m one of those these elevated minds have decided should not get to do that their children can have a better life. I don’t actually take it personally, but that is what’s happening here from a perspective that isn’t their own. I don’t think our problem is scarcity. I believe our problem is living in excess.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    You're making a very valid point. In the US at least, incentives are low (not zero... There's the child tax credit, but how does that stack up against an economy where two-person households work 39.5 hours each to stay in place?)
shadowgovt 5y ago
Starting with having fewer children, which appears to shady be happening via mostly-uncoerced process(1). (1) Debatably. Plenty of room for disagreement. Point is, we don't have to remove anyone if we just don't replace them.
MikeTheGreat 5y ago
Starting with the elderly, as they naturally pass away by virtue of being human, and being old. No-one is suggesting that we actively kill people. The article is talking about attrition (rates of reproduction are declining - fewer people are being born and the people who are here naturally age & die) From TFA: "The next stage of the demographic transition, after a drop in mortality, is a subsequent drop in fertility (although the relationship isn’t straightforward). Family sizes fall from 5 to 6 down towards replacement level. But then they drop further — and never come back. Indeed across most of the world, outside of sub-Saharan Africa, family sizes are still shrinking, and populations ageing."
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  I wasn’t asking “TFA”. This is a discussion, isn’t it?
Victerius 5y ago
The lawyers.
elliekelly 5y ago
Not forcing people to be parents when they don’t want to be seems like a good place to start. Giving kids (heck, adults, too!) the resources they need to avoid becoming parents (if they so chose) seems like another. Ending tax exemptions for religious organizations (who historically oppose the above and encourage having more children so as to grow their follower count) could be another easy place to start.
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  Definitely sounds like a good place to start if you’re any to simply reduce the number of people. But is that really the problem, or just the most expedient solution to a subset of minds?

closeparen 5y ago

It really is the case that some people cannot be happy while there are too many other people -- they need to live on enormous properties and drive huge gas-guzzling trucks at high speeds without ever meeting any traffic or parking contention. The presence of neighbors genuinely diminishes their well-being. From both a geometry and energy perspective, not too many people can have this life. But it's also the case that a lot of people are happy living in Manhattan and taking the subway. Billions more people could have this life if we allowed it. I think people whose preferences are incompatible with the vast majority of their fellow humans being alive, need to take one for the team here.