3 ms·

How might we get there? Improving productivity would be an easy start.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Productivity is already very high, it’s all just soaked up by the very wealthy. It’s a distribution issue, and the very wealthy are not interested in improving that. A rapidly declining fertility rate means socioeconomic systems will be forced to adapt as a forcing function, this is a good thing. If anything, drive fertility rates lower faster through robust empowerment of women. As the labor supply compresses over time, labor will have more power as demand exceeds supply. Unwanted children? Solved. Systems that don’t provide for those in need? Less effort needed to force those systems to change. Everyone wins except extractionists.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  But high productivity depends on large-scale division of labor. If the labor force compresses very far, can you maintain the high productivity? I don't want to live in the 1920s, or worse, the 1820s. Can the population shrink, and we still maintain our level of tech (and even maintain some progress)? How far can the population shrink, and we maintain that?
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Someone else can figure out if this is sustainable when women have agency, autonomy, and self determination. Humanity can engineer a way out or suck it up. Are you advocating for quality of life and consumer excess over human suffering?
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    Can you scope that question a little more tightly? (frex, who is "we"?) I can tell you that I live in a country with a population well under 10% of the US', and memories of WWII giving us pretensions towards autarky, yet we still do cutting edge research, and most tourists consider the local standard of living reasonably high. (in particular, we do not rely upon —as in my memories of the US last century— having pools of day labourers standing around waiting at "the wall" to be at your beck and call for all your low-productivity economic needs)

Productivity is already very high, it’s all just soaked up by the very wealthy. It’s a distribution issue, and the very wealthy are not interested in improving that. A rapidly declining fertility rate means socioeconomic systems will be forced to adapt as a forcing function, this is a good thing. If anything, drive fertility rates lower faster through robust empowerment of women. As the labor supply compresses over time, labor will have more power as demand exceeds supply. Unwanted children? Solved. Systems that don’t provide for those in need? Less effort needed to force those systems to change. Everyone wins except extractionists.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
But high productivity depends on large-scale division of labor. If the labor force compresses very far, can you maintain the high productivity? I don't want to live in the 1920s, or worse, the 1820s. Can the population shrink, and we still maintain our level of tech (and even maintain some progress)? How far can the population shrink, and we maintain that?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Someone else can figure out if this is sustainable when women have agency, autonomy, and self determination. Humanity can engineer a way out or suck it up. Are you advocating for quality of life and consumer excess over human suffering?
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Can you scope that question a little more tightly? (frex, who is "we"?) I can tell you that I live in a country with a population well under 10% of the US', and memories of WWII giving us pretensions towards autarky, yet we still do cutting edge research, and most tourists consider the local standard of living reasonably high. (in particular, we do not rely upon —as in my memories of the US last century— having pools of day labourers standing around waiting at "the wall" to be at your beck and call for all your low-productivity economic needs)