5 ms·
It is only compatible because we are approaching peak population mid to late century and then we will slowly contract over time until extinction through lack of
by spullara 4y ago
It is only compatible because we are approaching peak population mid to late century and then we will slowly contract over time until extinction through lack of births... if trends continue.
- cjsaltlake 4y agoIf trends continue, there will be 10 billion Amish in 100 years.
- spullara 4y agoIt is not entirely without merit to say that religious folks that encourage large families like the Amish, Catholics and Mormons will dominate in the distant future. Hell, I have 45 first cousins (on one side) and they on average have 3+ kids so it might just be my extended family :)
- marshray 4y agoThat experiment has been running for 50 generations already, by now it should have reached steady-state. Perhaps that's part of the reason that 84% of the world's population identifies with a religion.
- rapind 4y agoI can't help but wonder if large families also beget religion just as religion begets large families. Now I personally think every religion I've encountered is ridiculous fiction (no offence, just my opinion), but I will admit that there can be some pretty significant advantages in a community. Raising a ton of kids is probably just easier in a close community of similar minded families (a.k.a. the local church/temple/mosque). It's almost like it's intentionally engineered to be this way.
- thrown_22 4y agoReligion is subject to natural selection just like anything else. Religions which produce more offspring that stay in the religion will always win out over the ones that don't.
- bawolff 4y agoUntil it becomes outweighed by splitting resources amongst too many children. Everything has pros and cons.
- thrown_22 4y agoSo long as the children survive to give birth to more children it doesn't matter how poor they are. Evolution doesn't care for the comfort of anyone.
- bawolff 4y ago> So long as the children survive to give birth to more children Big if. In a true famine, the poor usually die first. > Evolution doesn't care for the comfort of anyone. Evolution cares about sexual desireability and fitness. Rich people usually have more. In nature we see these two strategies as well. Some species try and have as many babies as possible, where others have fewer but concentrate resources to make sure the few are more likely to survive. Neither strategy is optimal in all situations.
- thrown_22 4y agoYou're mixing up personal fitness with the fitness of a meme. Sure rich people have more surviving children in the long run, but why don't we ask the rich Pagan Roman Senators how well their money protected them from the hungry Christian mob?
- Bakary 4y agoWe aren't heading to extinction just on account of birthrates, it's the transition phase with a large number of elderly dependents and a small number of workers that is going to be the real problem.
- spullara 4y agoYeah, that will be a problem for sure. We will get a preview of it in Asia.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoDespite all the fearmongering and wailing and gnashing of teeth, Japan is doing okay with a shrinking population.
- spullara 4y agoThey have a long fall ahead of them. https://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/esuikei/econ2.html#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20results%20of,and%20Figure%201%2D1 https://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/esuikei/econ2.h...). Going from 128m in 2010 to 87m in 2060.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoAnd despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, they'll probably continue do fine, as they have since their population leveled out 30 years ago. The doomsday predictions haven't just started now, and they weren't only about events in 2060. They started decades ago about population growth slowing, population leveling, population dropping. They've been pretty consistently wrong.
- thrown_22 4y ago>They've been pretty consistently wrong. They haven't been wrong, they turned out to be right for everyone. People who didn't live through the boom of the 1950s can't imagine what it's like to live in a world where things improve for everyone every year. Japan didn't start growing like it did before 1980 again, everyone else stopped too. China has been basically the only driver of world economic growth for the last 40 years. Which is kind of astonishing considering they are communists.
- adriand 4y agoAlthough I find the prospect disturbing, I think at some point (assuming we manage this dangerous transition) we will produce children in a technological way that is decoupled from human mothers. I could also see a social movement developing that campaigned for this on the grounds of equity for women. It could be presented as both essential for the species and empowering for all genders…and that might be true.