3 ms·

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 ju

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.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      No, you're just trying to push your own agenda and are arguing in bad faith. I responded to your question "why?", saying that we wouldn't want to in today's world. I only discussed increasing population in a possible far future with offworld colonies, and you willfully ignored that part. >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. I already answered this question. Why would women want to have 10 kids if they don't have to? Obviously, you're not a woman and haven't spent much time around any.
ethbr1 2y ago
The biggest benefits from artificial gestation are mass and life support. It's a helluva lot easier to accelerate and provide life support to frozen embryos than it is an adult human. Without radical propulsion breakthroughs, there are severe mass limits on what we'd be able to send to nearby star systems in a reasonable amount of time. Artificial gestation technology changes that.

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.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    No, you're just trying to push your own agenda and are arguing in bad faith. I responded to your question "why?", saying that we wouldn't want to in today's world. I only discussed increasing population in a possible far future with offworld colonies, and you willfully ignored that part. >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. I already answered this question. Why would women want to have 10 kids if they don't have to? Obviously, you're not a woman and haven't spent much time around any.

ethbr1 2y ago

The biggest benefits from artificial gestation are mass and life support. It's a helluva lot easier to accelerate and provide life support to frozen embryos than it is an adult human. Without radical propulsion breakthroughs, there are severe mass limits on what we'd be able to send to nearby star systems in a reasonable amount of time. Artificial gestation technology changes that.