4 ms·

The human population cannot grow indefinitely without moving to other planets, which is very much infeasible now and probably infeasible into the foreseeable fu

The human population cannot grow indefinitely without moving to other planets, which is very much infeasible now and probably infeasible into the foreseeable future. Society just has to adapt. The problem I see is our current leaders are only interested in pushing the problem down the road. Declining population (which won't actually decline till 2080-ish IIRC) is not in itself a problem.

RugnirViking 3y ago
I agree. This is a transitory state, where a lot of assumption built into the social contract will break down. If we can fix them (and presumably we will... eventually), there is nothing inherently bad about a declining population. But in the meantime things may get interesting.
kiba 3y ago
We still have plenty of room on this planet, and upcoming medical technology may change the equation on the number of people dying. I hope to start a family before people start imposing measure to limit population growth.
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  it is extrodinarily unlikely anyone will do such as thing. As I noted earlier. the birth rate is below replacement rate in almost all developed countries. If not for immigrants population would be shrinking. If anything they would demand more children...
  - kiba 3y ago
    It is because the elderly are dying, same as they always been dying through out the ages. The older you get the more likely you are to die. The current demographic trend is based on this assumption. It goes out the window the moment we start meaningfully reducing the probability of death.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      > It goes out the window the moment we start meaningfully reducing the probability of death. What does “Meaningfully reducing the probability of death” mean? I thought death is certain. Do you mean pushing death further into to future, say by hundreds or thousands of years?
      - kiba 3y ago
        The probability of death is correlated to your chronological age. The older you are, the more likely you are to die. Eliminating or reducing the probability of death correlated to chronological age means our average lifespan is likely to be thousand of years, but not unlimited since we will die to other causes, likely involving accidents and natural disaster.
- thatfrenchguy 3y ago
  Better medical technology means people die older. Older people already own most of the capital, having them live longer isn’t going to get us to a healthier society that’s not as biased towards existing capital versus innovation and income.
  - kiba 3y ago
    And older people passing their wealth to a newer generation isn't going to fix things either. All that changes is who will be ossifying society. At least, with medical technologies, people can't run away from the problem by dying of old age. That's a separate problem to the population crisis. People thinks population's going to decline. I am not so sure. Things can change a lot in a few decade. All we can say that at this current time, the trend is toward population decline.
cma 3y ago
Growing at a fixed percentage each year can never go on without growing faster than can fit in our light cone.

RugnirViking 3y ago

I agree. This is a transitory state, where a lot of assumption built into the social contract will break down. If we can fix them (and presumably we will... eventually), there is nothing inherently bad about a declining population. But in the meantime things may get interesting.

kiba 3y ago

We still have plenty of room on this planet, and upcoming medical technology may change the equation on the number of people dying. I hope to start a family before people start imposing measure to limit population growth.

RugnirViking 3y ago
it is extrodinarily unlikely anyone will do such as thing. As I noted earlier. the birth rate is below replacement rate in almost all developed countries. If not for immigrants population would be shrinking. If anything they would demand more children...
- kiba 3y ago
  It is because the elderly are dying, same as they always been dying through out the ages. The older you get the more likely you are to die. The current demographic trend is based on this assumption. It goes out the window the moment we start meaningfully reducing the probability of death.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > It goes out the window the moment we start meaningfully reducing the probability of death. What does “Meaningfully reducing the probability of death” mean? I thought death is certain. Do you mean pushing death further into to future, say by hundreds or thousands of years?
    - kiba 3y ago
      The probability of death is correlated to your chronological age. The older you are, the more likely you are to die. Eliminating or reducing the probability of death correlated to chronological age means our average lifespan is likely to be thousand of years, but not unlimited since we will die to other causes, likely involving accidents and natural disaster.
thatfrenchguy 3y ago
Better medical technology means people die older. Older people already own most of the capital, having them live longer isn’t going to get us to a healthier society that’s not as biased towards existing capital versus innovation and income.
- kiba 3y ago
  And older people passing their wealth to a newer generation isn't going to fix things either. All that changes is who will be ossifying society. At least, with medical technologies, people can't run away from the problem by dying of old age. That's a separate problem to the population crisis. People thinks population's going to decline. I am not so sure. Things can change a lot in a few decade. All we can say that at this current time, the trend is toward population decline.

cma 3y ago

Growing at a fixed percentage each year can never go on without growing faster than can fit in our light cone.