3 ms·

when we have 100billion people on earth it will be inevitable

by sabbaticaldev 2y ago

joshmarinacci 2y ago
That will never happen. We won’t even reach 10 billion. We are leveling off already.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >That will never happen. Using natural reproduction you're correct. Never say never, though: we could massively boost the birthrate and the population by turning to artificial methods. Aldous Huxley's visionary utopian novel "Brave New World" discussed how this could be done back in 1935. Once we develop the technology to make "artificial wombs", we won't need natural reproduction any more and can create as many new people as we want.
  - defrost 2y ago
    But why ? Is there any conceivable advantage to overstuffing the planet with an excess of population, particularly when they'll need to be supported with supply pipelines so well crafted there's no margin of error that doesn't kill a few million (less than 1 percent!!). I get the techno sci fi "because we can" argument, where's the grounded rationale?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Buy why ? The only reason I can come up with is a dictator raising an army. In that sense, a human is a cheaper drone.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      In today's world, you wouldn't want an increasing population unless you're very short-sighted. You might, however, want an artificial boost to the birthrate just to maintain a constant population. Growing populations are good for the economy, but bad for the environment. Shrinking populations are really bad for the economy. But a stable population might be a good compromise that economies and social systems can adapt to. However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people, we would need to expand as a species, not shrink to the size of a small city, which is the natural result if birthrates stay as they are now. Of course, it might not come to this at all: perhaps we'll perfect anti-aging technologies (so greatly reducing the death rate), and technology to allow people to have kids at almost any age instead of needing to do it before they're 40.
      - defrost 2y ago
        > However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people Why would we need a hundred billion on Earth? > we would need to expand as a species, Why? > not shrink to the size of a small city, which is the natural result if birthrates stay as they are now. Why would birthrates stay as they are? Why not a typical population cycle for an constrained with population expanding, peaking, falling somewhat, and then expanding again ? Saying "we need to" and "would have to" does not in any way address the "why" of the question asked, it's merely restating a belief that "that's the way things should(?) go".
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        >> However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people >Why would we need a hundred billion on Earth? When did I ever say anything about having a hundred billion (or any number) on Earth? >> we would need to expand as a species, >Why? It's human nature to expand. Besides, more people means more art, more science, more innovation, etc. And of course an expanding economy. Plus what if something really bad happens? Having more people scattered around is more insurance against extinction. If something awful happens on Earth, having billions in space means humanity will continue. >Why would birthrates stay as they are? Birthrates are continuously falling, in case you haven't noticed. They're not going to stay the same as they are now, they're going to decrease even more. >Why not a typical population cycle for an constrained with population expanding, peaking, falling somewhat, and then expanding again ? Why would birthrates increase? Every single piece of data we have has shown that when women have choice and agency and people have access to contraception, birthrates fall. So for birthrates to increase, we either have to make women into slaves (I don't support this), or we need another solution.
        defrost 2y ago
        I asked "Is there any conceivable advantage to overstuffing the planet with an excess of population" in the context of sabbaticaldev stating: > when we have 100billion people on earth it will be inevitable and you responded. The context of excess population on the planet was already given. > Birthrates are continuously falling, in case you haven't noticed. They are, for now, I've been aware of that for 20 years and cheering it along. > They're not going to stay the same as they are now, they're going to decrease even more. Again, why? The normal expectation in biology in resource constrained populations is boom | bust cycles and it's entirely reasonable to think that birth rates will pick up when back pressure decreases.
yongjik 2y ago
There's no way it would work out economically: compared to Mars, it would be literally cheaper to build every one of these 100 billion people a US style suburban house with all the power, water, and sewage connected. Probably by an order of magnitude or two.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

when we have 100billion people on earth it will be inevitable

joshmarinacci 2y ago

That will never happen. We won’t even reach 10 billion. We are leveling off already.

shiroiushi 2y ago
>That will never happen. Using natural reproduction you're correct. Never say never, though: we could massively boost the birthrate and the population by turning to artificial methods. Aldous Huxley's visionary utopian novel "Brave New World" discussed how this could be done back in 1935. Once we develop the technology to make "artificial wombs", we won't need natural reproduction any more and can create as many new people as we want.
- defrost 2y ago
  But why ? Is there any conceivable advantage to overstuffing the planet with an excess of population, particularly when they'll need to be supported with supply pipelines so well crafted there's no margin of error that doesn't kill a few million (less than 1 percent!!). I get the techno sci fi "because we can" argument, where's the grounded rationale?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Buy why ? The only reason I can come up with is a dictator raising an army. In that sense, a human is a cheaper drone.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    In today's world, you wouldn't want an increasing population unless you're very short-sighted. You might, however, want an artificial boost to the birthrate just to maintain a constant population. Growing populations are good for the economy, but bad for the environment. Shrinking populations are really bad for the economy. But a stable population might be a good compromise that economies and social systems can adapt to. However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people, we would need to expand as a species, not shrink to the size of a small city, which is the natural result if birthrates stay as they are now. Of course, it might not come to this at all: perhaps we'll perfect anti-aging technologies (so greatly reducing the death rate), and technology to allow people to have kids at almost any age instead of needing to do it before they're 40.
    - defrost 2y ago
      > However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people Why would we need a hundred billion on Earth? > we would need to expand as a species, Why? > not shrink to the size of a small city, which is the natural result if birthrates stay as they are now. Why would birthrates stay as they are? Why not a typical population cycle for an constrained with population expanding, peaking, falling somewhat, and then expanding again ? Saying "we need to" and "would have to" does not in any way address the "why" of the question asked, it's merely restating a belief that "that's the way things should(?) go".
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        >> However, looking into the much farther future, where we've perfected offworld habitats such as O'Neal cylinders that can hold millions of people >Why would we need a hundred billion on Earth? When did I ever say anything about having a hundred billion (or any number) on Earth? >> we would need to expand as a species, >Why? It's human nature to expand. Besides, more people means more art, more science, more innovation, etc. And of course an expanding economy. Plus what if something really bad happens? Having more people scattered around is more insurance against extinction. If something awful happens on Earth, having billions in space means humanity will continue. >Why would birthrates stay as they are? Birthrates are continuously falling, in case you haven't noticed. They're not going to stay the same as they are now, they're going to decrease even more. >Why not a typical population cycle for an constrained with population expanding, peaking, falling somewhat, and then expanding again ? Why would birthrates increase? Every single piece of data we have has shown that when women have choice and agency and people have access to contraception, birthrates fall. So for birthrates to increase, we either have to make women into slaves (I don't support this), or we need another solution.
        defrost 2y ago
        I asked "Is there any conceivable advantage to overstuffing the planet with an excess of population" in the context of sabbaticaldev stating: > when we have 100billion people on earth it will be inevitable and you responded. The context of excess population on the planet was already given. > Birthrates are continuously falling, in case you haven't noticed. They are, for now, I've been aware of that for 20 years and cheering it along. > They're not going to stay the same as they are now, they're going to decrease even more. Again, why? The normal expectation in biology in resource constrained populations is boom | bust cycles and it's entirely reasonable to think that birth rates will pick up when back pressure decreases.

yongjik 2y ago

There's no way it would work out economically: compared to Mars, it would be literally cheaper to build every one of these 100 billion people a US style suburban house with all the power, water, and sewage connected. Probably by an order of magnitude or two.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]