4 ms·

Earth receives more solar energy in an hour than human civilization uses in a year. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy https://en.wikipedia.org

Earth receives more solar energy in an hour than human civilization uses in a year. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy We're not even vertically farming at scale yet. There's a lot of room left for densifying human civilization. Seems like 10x should be achievable.

defrost 3y ago
> There's a lot of room left for densifying human civilization. Seems like 10x should be achievable. Why? Why isn't 8 billion enough? Is there a plastic ring prize if we hit 80 billion? Or are you talking about squeezing the 8 billion we have now closer together?
- timschmidt 3y ago
  People have children for lots of reasons. I'm probably not qualified to list them all, but I expect that people will not stop any time soon. Seems that they enjoy the process. Perhaps consider that those 80 billion souls will contain Einsteins and Mozarts.
  - defrost 3y ago
    We had OG Einstein and Mozart and Erdős and many others before we hit 5 billion. People are having fewer children, as living conditions, education, and acces to TV increases the reproduction rate falls. Ideally we'll level out at 6 billion or so. You haven't given any good reason why the earth should squeeze as many upright aquatic apes on it as possible yet.
    - timschmidt 3y ago
      > We had OG Einstein and Mozart and Erdős Oh good, we don't ever need any more then. /s > Ideally we'll level out at 6 billion or so. I doubt there's any single ideal population size, because the impact of each individual varies so widely. In the future, when we're all living 100% solar powered regenerative net-carbon-negative lives, the problem will be that there aren't enough people to offset warming caused by volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, and overpopulated wildlife.
      - defrost 3y ago
        > Oh good, we don't ever need any more then. /s Always handy, the point (lean back, look up) is we don't need 80 billion as a prerequisite to have more - that's a weak (to be generous) argument. > I doubt there's any single ideal population size, .. It's bounded by an upper limit of humans living like turkeys in a turkey farm and tossing the weak in the chipper to blend back in with the feed . . . is that your ideal mode of life? The Earth is nice example of a complex system with many interconnect parts maintaining a relatively stable for millenia feedback regulated environment. What is the argument for pushing human population to 80 billion, and at what cost does that come in terms of human living standards and the other non human life we share the planet with?
        timschmidt 3y ago
        > we don't need 80 billion as a prerequisite to have more Your claim, unproven. My point is that 80 billions souls will produce 80 billions souls worth of art, science, literature, and culture. Which sounds divine. Why would you be opposed to such a thing if it can be accomplished sustainably? > It's bounded by an upper limit of humans living like turkeys in a turkey farm and tossing the weak in the chipper to blend back in with the feed Seems that you have a dark turn of mind, which explains the pessimism. > What is the argument for pushing human population to 80 billion, and at what cost does that come in terms of human living standards and the other non human life we share the planet with? Humans have lived regeneratively and sustainably in the past. We seem to be in the process of figuring out how to do it in a less labor intensive manner presently. I do my part to live sustainably, and I believe in humanity's ability to innovate and adapt and to address complex problems. Seems like you feel differently.
        RankingMember 3y ago
        > My point is that 80 billions souls will produce 80 billions souls worth of art, science, literature, and culture. Which sounds divine. This sounds like magical thinking. Even making the huge leap to say that cultural output would somehow scale commensurate with population infinitely, what does that actually look like in a reality with finite time and attention? I think we've already passed the point where anyone can keep up with all the cultural output (music, literature, graphical media) that is released each day. This idea of a cultural smorgasbord where we all get to sit back and enjoy a buffet of art is a dream that can only exist in the most idealistic of vaccuums.

defrost 3y ago

> There's a lot of room left for densifying human civilization. Seems like 10x should be achievable. Why? Why isn't 8 billion enough? Is there a plastic ring prize if we hit 80 billion? Or are you talking about squeezing the 8 billion we have now closer together?

timschmidt 3y ago
People have children for lots of reasons. I'm probably not qualified to list them all, but I expect that people will not stop any time soon. Seems that they enjoy the process. Perhaps consider that those 80 billion souls will contain Einsteins and Mozarts.
- defrost 3y ago
  We had OG Einstein and Mozart and Erdős and many others before we hit 5 billion. People are having fewer children, as living conditions, education, and acces to TV increases the reproduction rate falls. Ideally we'll level out at 6 billion or so. You haven't given any good reason why the earth should squeeze as many upright aquatic apes on it as possible yet.
  - timschmidt 3y ago
    > We had OG Einstein and Mozart and Erdős Oh good, we don't ever need any more then. /s > Ideally we'll level out at 6 billion or so. I doubt there's any single ideal population size, because the impact of each individual varies so widely. In the future, when we're all living 100% solar powered regenerative net-carbon-negative lives, the problem will be that there aren't enough people to offset warming caused by volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, and overpopulated wildlife.
    - defrost 3y ago
      > Oh good, we don't ever need any more then. /s Always handy, the point (lean back, look up) is we don't need 80 billion as a prerequisite to have more - that's a weak (to be generous) argument. > I doubt there's any single ideal population size, .. It's bounded by an upper limit of humans living like turkeys in a turkey farm and tossing the weak in the chipper to blend back in with the feed . . . is that your ideal mode of life? The Earth is nice example of a complex system with many interconnect parts maintaining a relatively stable for millenia feedback regulated environment. What is the argument for pushing human population to 80 billion, and at what cost does that come in terms of human living standards and the other non human life we share the planet with?
      - timschmidt 3y ago
        > we don't need 80 billion as a prerequisite to have more Your claim, unproven. My point is that 80 billions souls will produce 80 billions souls worth of art, science, literature, and culture. Which sounds divine. Why would you be opposed to such a thing if it can be accomplished sustainably? > It's bounded by an upper limit of humans living like turkeys in a turkey farm and tossing the weak in the chipper to blend back in with the feed Seems that you have a dark turn of mind, which explains the pessimism. > What is the argument for pushing human population to 80 billion, and at what cost does that come in terms of human living standards and the other non human life we share the planet with? Humans have lived regeneratively and sustainably in the past. We seem to be in the process of figuring out how to do it in a less labor intensive manner presently. I do my part to live sustainably, and I believe in humanity's ability to innovate and adapt and to address complex problems. Seems like you feel differently.
        RankingMember 3y ago
        > My point is that 80 billions souls will produce 80 billions souls worth of art, science, literature, and culture. Which sounds divine. This sounds like magical thinking. Even making the huge leap to say that cultural output would somehow scale commensurate with population infinitely, what does that actually look like in a reality with finite time and attention? I think we've already passed the point where anyone can keep up with all the cultural output (music, literature, graphical media) that is released each day. This idea of a cultural smorgasbord where we all get to sit back and enjoy a buffet of art is a dream that can only exist in the most idealistic of vaccuums.