5 ms·

The elephant in the room is that the Industrial world wanted alot of people, and the post Industrial world does not. Not only in terms of production, but in ter

The elephant in the room is that the Industrial world wanted alot of people, and the post Industrial world does not. Not only in terms of production, but in terms of having a livable environment for everyone. So what happens to what are now "excess" people? The answer to that question is gonna define pretty much everything.

infamouscow 4y ago
I believe the term you're looking for is "useless eaters".
rank0 4y ago
We can’t sustain our current levels of spending without a growing population. The lions share of American spending goes to social services: social security, Medicare, Medicaid. If you’re referencing to automation taking over…I fully agree with your point. It seems like half the people around me have made up jobs.
- namelessoracle 4y ago
  The elites that control everything dont really care about social security, medicare, medicaid. Automation can make all the things they would want. Why do they need you around again? Especially when having you around creates pollution that makes things worse for them....
  - rank0 4y ago
    Because if shit gets bad enough for the general population, they go after the elites in full force. This is why we have constant revolution throughout human history.
    - namelessoracle 4y ago
      Whats scary to me is that before the elites needed other non elites to be bodyguards/administrators/army/muscle for them to help avoid that, and they at least had to trickle down to their henchmen to keep in power. What happens when they have automation for that?
      - rank0 4y ago
        Honestly good point idk. I like to think that a fully self sustaining autonomous defense system will never exist
throwaway15908 4y ago
This is dangerous bs. Easy to swallow for the uneducated masses. Putting all moral consideration aside, imagine you could totally depopulate two continents of your choosing. Why should any problem of modern economics be solved by that? The concept of depopulation is simple enough to fit in a single sentence, it leaves out the real problem and its vast complexity (our linear economies and lifestyles attached to it), conveniently some one else is to blame and with all that, it is compatible to xenophobia. It ticks all boxes. Of course, no problem would be fixed, the only thing you would buy with depopulation is time. The real problem is our unsustainable system, which is independent from any population count. >We are too many people for what? Is the question you fail to ask and answer. And going further this path of stupidly easy enemy stereotypes leads to all the societal atrocities you may have heard of.
- namelessoracle 4y ago
  > The real problem is our unsustainable system, which is independent from any population count I mean it's just science that the planet can only sustain X people at Y life style (you can swap out "life style" for "level of consumption"). Like there is hard rules of physics about quantity of water, minerals, et cetra. So you can either lower X, lower Y, or try to side step the problem entirely by going to other planets/mine asteroids/magic to increase the resource pool.
  - throwaway15908 4y ago
    A system is either sustainable or not, this is independent of population. The sustainable level of consumption is dependent on population.
    - namelessoracle 4y ago
      What? A glass can hold X amount of water. You add X plus 1 and water spills out. "Guess the glass couldn't sustain X water!" is what you are claiming? Systems can only be sustained within certain parameters. There is no magical system that is always sustainable regardless of parameters. But it sounds like we are saying basically the same thing in any case. Consumption can go down and more population can be supported. Or consumption can continue at current levels but population will have to go down. (and that level it would have to go down might be truly horrific)

infamouscow 4y ago

I believe the term you're looking for is "useless eaters".

rank0 4y ago

We can’t sustain our current levels of spending without a growing population. The lions share of American spending goes to social services: social security, Medicare, Medicaid. If you’re referencing to automation taking over…I fully agree with your point. It seems like half the people around me have made up jobs.

namelessoracle 4y ago
The elites that control everything dont really care about social security, medicare, medicaid. Automation can make all the things they would want. Why do they need you around again? Especially when having you around creates pollution that makes things worse for them....
- rank0 4y ago
  Because if shit gets bad enough for the general population, they go after the elites in full force. This is why we have constant revolution throughout human history.
  - namelessoracle 4y ago
    Whats scary to me is that before the elites needed other non elites to be bodyguards/administrators/army/muscle for them to help avoid that, and they at least had to trickle down to their henchmen to keep in power. What happens when they have automation for that?
    - rank0 4y ago
      Honestly good point idk. I like to think that a fully self sustaining autonomous defense system will never exist

throwaway15908 4y ago

This is dangerous bs. Easy to swallow for the uneducated masses. Putting all moral consideration aside, imagine you could totally depopulate two continents of your choosing. Why should any problem of modern economics be solved by that? The concept of depopulation is simple enough to fit in a single sentence, it leaves out the real problem and its vast complexity (our linear economies and lifestyles attached to it), conveniently some one else is to blame and with all that, it is compatible to xenophobia. It ticks all boxes. Of course, no problem would be fixed, the only thing you would buy with depopulation is time. The real problem is our unsustainable system, which is independent from any population count. >We are too many people for what? Is the question you fail to ask and answer. And going further this path of stupidly easy enemy stereotypes leads to all the societal atrocities you may have heard of.

namelessoracle 4y ago
> The real problem is our unsustainable system, which is independent from any population count I mean it's just science that the planet can only sustain X people at Y life style (you can swap out "life style" for "level of consumption"). Like there is hard rules of physics about quantity of water, minerals, et cetra. So you can either lower X, lower Y, or try to side step the problem entirely by going to other planets/mine asteroids/magic to increase the resource pool.
- throwaway15908 4y ago
  A system is either sustainable or not, this is independent of population. The sustainable level of consumption is dependent on population.
  - namelessoracle 4y ago
    What? A glass can hold X amount of water. You add X plus 1 and water spills out. "Guess the glass couldn't sustain X water!" is what you are claiming? Systems can only be sustained within certain parameters. There is no magical system that is always sustainable regardless of parameters. But it sounds like we are saying basically the same thing in any case. Consumption can go down and more population can be supported. Or consumption can continue at current levels but population will have to go down. (and that level it would have to go down might be truly horrific)