11 ms·

This was more my understanding. That even with todays population slowdown/shrinking, there is already worry that we wont be able to staff the jobs to keep soc

This was more my understanding. That even with todays population slowdown/shrinking, there is already worry that we wont be able to staff the jobs to keep society functioning. Suddenly you have a factory that makes pumps, it can't meet demand, so the factory that makes tractors doesn't meet demand, so farmers can't plant. We end up back with Oxen pulled plows. It seems that "The Peripheral" kind of skipped how they got to the automated economy that didn't need humans. Especially after the catastrophes that occurred that wiped out the population.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
If the world lost half it's people, it would be 1970s level population with modern technology. I think you and the parent poster are underestimating the amount of redundancy that exists in most every industry. Another way to think about it is the USA population is 3.5% of the world population and trade (both ways) makes up 20% of the USA GDP. If the rest of the world were walled off, we wouldn't go back to the stone age. If everyone else in the world fell over dead and the resources were available, the US would be massively better off than now.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  >If the world lost half it's people, it would be 1970s level population with modern technology. Sure, but with modern technology that they can't easily replace or repair. How long does the technology last? Is anything we make today made for longevity? >I think you and the parent poster are underestimating the amount of redundancy Redundancy is inefficient and costs money. We live in a world without warehouses, because just-in-time shipping is cheaper. We live in a world where every 6 months the soda can you get out of the vending machine has a little less aluminum in it than half a year ago because someone figured out how to shave a bit more off of that without it rupturing in transit. There's less redundancy in this world than you imagine, because reducing the redundancy cut costs and the stock price got a boost a few years ago. Why have spare parts on hand, when there will be even better parts manufactured next year? >If the rest of the world were walled off, we wouldn't go back to the stone age. Yeh, we would. It wouldn't happen instantly, but it would happen within decades. That would be true even if the population reduction were the only problem. >If everyone else in the world fell over dead and the resources were available, the US would be massively better off than now. People *are the resource*. Everything else is just rocks in the ground. You can have a million square miles of old growth forest, but it's not timber unless there are people who can do the lumberjack thing. You can have a trillion barrels of oil in the ground 200ft down, but it's not fuel and plastic unless there are people to pump it out and refine it. So on and so on. People were always the resource, and while not all people are effectively utilized all the time, the more you have the more resources you have. And there's this absurd network effect where two people are more than twice as useful as one person, and so on, so that when you have truly large numbers of people you have absurd amounts of resources. Quite possibly, the only thing for which this effect isn't true is real estate. That's sort of a fixed supply.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I couldn't disagree more. We will have to agree to disagree. The logs per person of one team with a million square miles to work with is more than 1000 teams working the same land. They get to pick the very best.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      >The logs per person of one team with a million square miles to work with is When they have logging trucks and chainsaws and GPS. The logs per person of one team when they're using technology circa 1905 is modest, at best, the logs per person when they're using iron axes and shitty leather boots cobbled together is pathetic. >They get to pick the very best. Human nature gets in the way of that. They'll pick whoever couldn't schmooze enough to get a better job.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        >They get to pick the very best. >>Human nature gets in the way of that. They'll pick whoever couldn't schmooze enough to get a better job. You missed my intent. They get to pick the best trees. if there is one team instead of 100, they get to log giant old growth trees next to the lumber mill instead of driving 1000 miles to some crappy new growth Forrest. Their spot would be at least as good as the best location available the 100 teams. As discussed elsewhere, I dont think you need 8 billion people to manufacture a modern chainsaw.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

If the world lost half it's people, it would be 1970s level population with modern technology. I think you and the parent poster are underestimating the amount of redundancy that exists in most every industry. Another way to think about it is the USA population is 3.5% of the world population and trade (both ways) makes up 20% of the USA GDP. If the rest of the world were walled off, we wouldn't go back to the stone age. If everyone else in the world fell over dead and the resources were available, the US would be massively better off than now.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
>If the world lost half it's people, it would be 1970s level population with modern technology. Sure, but with modern technology that they can't easily replace or repair. How long does the technology last? Is anything we make today made for longevity? >I think you and the parent poster are underestimating the amount of redundancy Redundancy is inefficient and costs money. We live in a world without warehouses, because just-in-time shipping is cheaper. We live in a world where every 6 months the soda can you get out of the vending machine has a little less aluminum in it than half a year ago because someone figured out how to shave a bit more off of that without it rupturing in transit. There's less redundancy in this world than you imagine, because reducing the redundancy cut costs and the stock price got a boost a few years ago. Why have spare parts on hand, when there will be even better parts manufactured next year? >If the rest of the world were walled off, we wouldn't go back to the stone age. Yeh, we would. It wouldn't happen instantly, but it would happen within decades. That would be true even if the population reduction were the only problem. >If everyone else in the world fell over dead and the resources were available, the US would be massively better off than now. People *are the resource*. Everything else is just rocks in the ground. You can have a million square miles of old growth forest, but it's not timber unless there are people who can do the lumberjack thing. You can have a trillion barrels of oil in the ground 200ft down, but it's not fuel and plastic unless there are people to pump it out and refine it. So on and so on. People were always the resource, and while not all people are effectively utilized all the time, the more you have the more resources you have. And there's this absurd network effect where two people are more than twice as useful as one person, and so on, so that when you have truly large numbers of people you have absurd amounts of resources. Quite possibly, the only thing for which this effect isn't true is real estate. That's sort of a fixed supply.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I couldn't disagree more. We will have to agree to disagree. The logs per person of one team with a million square miles to work with is more than 1000 teams working the same land. They get to pick the very best.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    >The logs per person of one team with a million square miles to work with is When they have logging trucks and chainsaws and GPS. The logs per person of one team when they're using technology circa 1905 is modest, at best, the logs per person when they're using iron axes and shitty leather boots cobbled together is pathetic. >They get to pick the very best. Human nature gets in the way of that. They'll pick whoever couldn't schmooze enough to get a better job.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      >They get to pick the very best. >>Human nature gets in the way of that. They'll pick whoever couldn't schmooze enough to get a better job. You missed my intent. They get to pick the best trees. if there is one team instead of 100, they get to log giant old growth trees next to the lumber mill instead of driving 1000 miles to some crappy new growth Forrest. Their spot would be at least as good as the best location available the 100 teams. As discussed elsewhere, I dont think you need 8 billion people to manufacture a modern chainsaw.