4 ms·
Large population implies low quality existence, at least in a system of finite resources. Multiplication for the sake of it is almost a guarantee to suffering f
by thefz 4y ago
Large population implies low quality existence, at least in a system of finite resources. Multiplication for the sake of it is almost a guarantee to suffering for some.
- hammock 4y ago>Multiplication for the sake of it is almost a guarantee to suffering for some. You ought to know that what you take here as a given is Malthusian and widely disagreed with in nearly every culture across the world
- throwaway744678 4y agoMalthus's theory was indeed proven to be false.
- trgn 4y agoMalthus didn't account for technology. We'll see how far that stretches. Malthus reasoning is rock solid. Exponential population growth puts strain on finite resources. Malthus was a huge influence on Darwin. That premise - the tension between different growth rates of populations and resources - underlies the theory of natural selection, people on this forum will certainly get behind that. But call it Malthusian, and it's suddenly false. It's also wrong to think that Malthus only just predicted doom. He used his model to explain a great deal of sociological phenomena (e.g. infanticide in china, delayed child rearing in wealthier societies, differences in diet between east and west). It's not that Malthus was wrong. It was that he was only mostly correct. People today are nitpicking on the little bits and pieces where he was incomplete. He also wrote this at the start of the industrial revolution. He couldn't have known.
- hammock 4y agoTechnology is a pretty big miss. Interesting to note that a lot of ideas contemporary with Malthus were wrong. For example, it was thought that the popular use of contraception would result in people marrying younger, since men would not fear taking a wife early in their career (they could control when and how many children to have, in harmony with whatever economic resources they might have). It turns out that contraception had the opposite effect
- tzs 4y ago> Malthus didn't account for technology. We'll see how far that stretches. The later you are in the exponential, the less technology can stretch it. At a 1% annual growth rate, for example, we've about 3400 years before the mass needed for the bodies of all then living humans will equal the combined mass of the Earth and Moon. Another 600 years and the mass of living humans equals the mass of Jupiter. 700 more years and the mass of all living humans equals the mass of the entire solar system. 2000 more years the mass of all living humans equals the mass of the entire Milky Way. Less than 100 years after that we need to add the entire mass of the Andromeda Galaxy. From that to needing the entire mass of the observable universe for human bodies is just another 5500 years (around 12300 years from now). Coincidentally (at least I think it is a coincidence...) that's also about the time that without FTL travel we run out of space in the universe to hold everybody. Right now every human is on or very near Earth. Given no FTL, it follows that N years from now every human must be within N light-years of Earth. Take the volume of a sphere of radius N light-years, and divide that by the number of people alive N years from now at 1% annual growth. That gives you how much space you have available per person. Around N=12000 the available space per person to drops under 0.06 m^3, which is the volume of a typical human. At 0.1% growth all the intervals above are about 10 times longer, so we hit the mass limit and the space limit at around 120000 years from now. 0.01% growth moves those both out to around 1.2 million years. Exponentials are truly terrifying. They can be cute and cuddly when they are young, but the mature form eats everything.
- trgn 4y agoYikes. These numbers are mindblowing ... I forget where I read this: "Exponentials often end up being sigmoids in disguise."
- thefz 4y agoI do not care what the current social panic is and how they like to call things. If you put yeast in a jar and some sugar in it, the yeast is going to consume all the sugar and grow until there's no more nutrient left, and then just die.
- nuc1e0n 4y agoThe universe is effectively infinite btw. Most people quite like potatoes and if there's a larger population more people can be musicians. The bloody minded bean counter mentality is more religion than anything.
- tzs 4y ago> The universe is effectively infinite btw But we are limited to the part of the universe that we can access. We've got a single planet we can easily access. We've got a few more planets we can reasonably access with reasonably foreseeable improvements to our technology. Past that, unless there are some major fundamental physics breakthroughs, we've got no even remotely plausible way to make use of any resource outside the solar system in any volume that makes a noticeable difference.
- nuc1e0n 4y agoI'd say we're more limited by failure of imagination than anything else.
- pessimizer 4y agoFailure to constrain our imagination to our available resources.
- nuc1e0n 4y agoI'd say 'constrain' is the wrong word to use here. 'tailor' may be better.
- jemmyw 4y agoEat imaginary potatoes?
- nuc1e0n 4y agoUmm. Ok. how about... CRISPR edited potatoes that have been made to taste like apricots? ;P
- BurningFrog 4y agoCommon view with a fundamental flaw: The most important resource for us people is other people! A lone human typically doesn't survive the winter. Big populations allow division of labor which is what has given us the, to people of the less populated past, unthinkable prosperity and long healthy lives.
- pessimizer 4y agoNobody is talking about lone humans. They're talking about the difference between 8 billion and 16 billion. It's not likely that any significant economies of scale that have somehow not managed to emerge at 8 billion people will emerge when you double that.
- BurningFrog 4y agoPerhaps. But going from 4 billion to 8 billion in the last 50 years, the living standard for the average person has improved spectacularly.
- thefz 4y agoAverage,yes. But just because the top has become wealthier.
- BurningFrog 4y agoNot at all. There has been enormous improvements for the poorest. Tons of data here. Look for yourself: https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief
- jemmyw 4y agoWe don't know if it would have improved more or less if the population stayed at 4 billion, so there's no argument there either way.
- thefz 4y agoWe've been surviving for thousands of years in very small, sparse groups.