4 ms·

> have 2 kids or fewer This is at odds with lots of other relevant topics that go beyond just "consumption". 2 or fewer is below the replacement rate of 2.1 T

by hypfer 4mo ago

> have 2 kids or fewer This is at odds with lots of other relevant topics that go beyond just "consumption". 2 or fewer is below the replacement rate of 2.1 This _has_ already happened, but there are a lot of voices voicing a lot of reasons why they believe that that might actually be not the best situation.

tialaramex 4mo ago
Below replacement would be terrifying if there were one thousand humans, it would be worrying if there were a million, and at least worthy of consideration if there were a hundred million, but there are almost ten billion simultaneous humans, we're fine.
- hypfer 4mo ago
  On a humanity-level: yes. On an individual state-level: no.
  - giantg2 4mo ago
    "On an individual state-level: no." This might actually be a yes if you believe in the potential impact of automation and AI.
    - generic92034 4mo ago
      And if you believe in the fair distribution of the benefits of automation and AI in the population. IMHO, this belief is the more unrealistic one, at least in the short term.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 4mo ago
  >Below replacement would be terrifying if there were one thousand humans, The funny part is that it should terrify you whether there are 10 humans or 10 billion. At the current rates, it's over in about 12-13 generations regardless of the number you start with. That's how it works... no matter how big the starting number, it's how many generations you have left. Think of it this way? You know the dumb story they taught us in school, about the guy whose payment from the king for doing something clever was to have one grain of rice on the first chess square, and 2 on the second, 4 on the third, and so on... and how it bankrupted the king long before the 64th square? That's the same math with fertility rate of 1.0! (The Chinese have a fertility rate of 1.0, famously.) Each generation will be half the size of the previous. But how long before that is effectively zero? Will it be 1 million years, 250,000 years? No, about 300ish. 300 years. But long before you reach that point, your civilization has fallen apart. Those last 4 or 5 generations live life without electricity, anything but muscle power, or metallurgy. And China's fertility rate isn't even the lowest! South Korea's rate just dropped to around 0.5! That's where each generation is one quarter the size of the previous. The best part of all is that these rates haven't even bottomed out. We will almost certainly see rates right around 0 long before the century ends. >but there are almost ten billion simultaneous humans, we're fine. At least math illiteracy ought to console you guys towards the end.
  - yoyohello13 4mo ago
    This whole comment rests on a very big assumption that these rates will never recover. Just because you can fit a trend line doesn’t mean the projections will pan out. It could just as easily be the case that once population starts meaningfully decreasing, the opportunity cost of children will also decrease and fertility rates will recover. This happens all the time in nature. Our population absolutely exploded over the last 100 years. This can easily just be a reversion to the mean. There really is no reason to be worrying about human extinction right now. In fact, the ‘extinction’ rhetoric is harmful and dangerous since so many ‘solutions’ to fertility rates are less education and less freedom. I have no trouble believing a handmaids tail like faction emerging because they believe they are saving the species.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 4mo ago
      >This whole comment rests on a very big assumption that these rates will never recover. J The opposite, actually. Your assumption is that the rates bounce up and down, mostly because you don't want to believe there's a problem. The rates are transmissible, older generations to the younger. No one growing up in a world where people have few or just one child will say to themselves "hey, you know what, I want 10 kids when I'm an adult!"... but that's what would have to happen. You and everyone else on HN whines "the reason people aren't having kids is the economy is awful and we can't afford them"... but in a world with a shrinking, aging population the economy just gets worse. You're the one making the very stupid assumption, and you can't even say why. I can, it's because you haven't thought about it. Perhaps it's uncomfortable to think that you're driving your species to extinction. >Our population absolutely exploded over the last 100 years. More nonsense. Our population isn't exploding, it's just big. And it will shrink rapidly. I already laid out the math... how long before 8 billion becomes 1000 when you're splitting it in half every generation (a generation is commonly held to be 20-25 years)? Can you do that math puzzle for us? There are only about 5 generations living on Earth at any given time. Just do the math already. None of this is pretty. >There really is no reason to be worrying about human extinction right now. Yes, there is. People are only generally capable of reproduction from the ages of 16 to 36... just 20 years. Every moment you waste "not worrying about it now" is the problem compounding with interest. You've already waited too long to worry about it. >In fact, the ‘extinction’ rhetoric is harmful and dangerous since so many ‘solutions’ to fertility rates are less education and less freedom. Well at least when our species dies out, the last few people will have masters degrees. That's the important part, right? >I have no trouble believing a handmaids tail like faction emerging It'd be because you and those like you forced the issue. Go ahead, stick your head in the sand some more. We all know that willful obliviousness to reality can change the rules of the universe themselves, right? Wish it all away!
jandrese 4mo ago
You see a whole lot of panic from industrialists over the birth rate drop in the industrialized world. They claim it is an extinction level event for humanity. This is not quite correct. It is an extinction level event for economic models that assume unbounded growth of the consumer base.
- gorjusborg 4mo ago
  This is an important distinction: what is good for ecology is not necessarily good for economy. If we need unbounded growth to jeep our economic system to function, its the economic system that is wrong, not nature.
  - CuriouslyC 4mo ago
    Hence why the die hard capitalist shills are so set on going to space.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - jay_kyburz 4mo ago
      We should help by shooting them into space.
      - mfru 4mo ago
        you can save even more co2 and costs by leaving the "into space" part out
  - kruffalon 4mo ago
    Capitalist economy. Economies can exist in many different ways. At its core it is just a way to describe how we move resources between ourselves and that can be done in many, many ways.
    - nradov 4mo ago

by hypfer 4mo ago

tialaramex 4mo ago

Below replacement would be terrifying if there were one thousand humans, it would be worrying if there were a million, and at least worthy of consideration if there were a hundred million, but there are almost ten billion simultaneous humans, we're fine.

hypfer 4mo ago
On a humanity-level: yes. On an individual state-level: no.
- giantg2 4mo ago
  "On an individual state-level: no." This might actually be a yes if you believe in the potential impact of automation and AI.
  - generic92034 4mo ago
    And if you believe in the fair distribution of the benefits of automation and AI in the population. IMHO, this belief is the more unrealistic one, at least in the short term.
NoMoreNicksLeft 4mo ago
>Below replacement would be terrifying if there were one thousand humans, The funny part is that it should terrify you whether there are 10 humans or 10 billion. At the current rates, it's over in about 12-13 generations regardless of the number you start with. That's how it works... no matter how big the starting number, it's how many generations you have left. Think of it this way? You know the dumb story they taught us in school, about the guy whose payment from the king for doing something clever was to have one grain of rice on the first chess square, and 2 on the second, 4 on the third, and so on... and how it bankrupted the king long before the 64th square? That's the same math with fertility rate of 1.0! (The Chinese have a fertility rate of 1.0, famously.) Each generation will be half the size of the previous. But how long before that is effectively zero? Will it be 1 million years, 250,000 years? No, about 300ish. 300 years. But long before you reach that point, your civilization has fallen apart. Those last 4 or 5 generations live life without electricity, anything but muscle power, or metallurgy. And China's fertility rate isn't even the lowest! South Korea's rate just dropped to around 0.5! That's where each generation is one quarter the size of the previous. The best part of all is that these rates haven't even bottomed out. We will almost certainly see rates right around 0 long before the century ends. >but there are almost ten billion simultaneous humans, we're fine. At least math illiteracy ought to console you guys towards the end.
- yoyohello13 4mo ago
  This whole comment rests on a very big assumption that these rates will never recover. Just because you can fit a trend line doesn’t mean the projections will pan out. It could just as easily be the case that once population starts meaningfully decreasing, the opportunity cost of children will also decrease and fertility rates will recover. This happens all the time in nature. Our population absolutely exploded over the last 100 years. This can easily just be a reversion to the mean. There really is no reason to be worrying about human extinction right now. In fact, the ‘extinction’ rhetoric is harmful and dangerous since so many ‘solutions’ to fertility rates are less education and less freedom. I have no trouble believing a handmaids tail like faction emerging because they believe they are saving the species.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 4mo ago
    >This whole comment rests on a very big assumption that these rates will never recover. J The opposite, actually. Your assumption is that the rates bounce up and down, mostly because you don't want to believe there's a problem. The rates are transmissible, older generations to the younger. No one growing up in a world where people have few or just one child will say to themselves "hey, you know what, I want 10 kids when I'm an adult!"... but that's what would have to happen. You and everyone else on HN whines "the reason people aren't having kids is the economy is awful and we can't afford them"... but in a world with a shrinking, aging population the economy just gets worse. You're the one making the very stupid assumption, and you can't even say why. I can, it's because you haven't thought about it. Perhaps it's uncomfortable to think that you're driving your species to extinction. >Our population absolutely exploded over the last 100 years. More nonsense. Our population isn't exploding, it's just big. And it will shrink rapidly. I already laid out the math... how long before 8 billion becomes 1000 when you're splitting it in half every generation (a generation is commonly held to be 20-25 years)? Can you do that math puzzle for us? There are only about 5 generations living on Earth at any given time. Just do the math already. None of this is pretty. >There really is no reason to be worrying about human extinction right now. Yes, there is. People are only generally capable of reproduction from the ages of 16 to 36... just 20 years. Every moment you waste "not worrying about it now" is the problem compounding with interest. You've already waited too long to worry about it. >In fact, the ‘extinction’ rhetoric is harmful and dangerous since so many ‘solutions’ to fertility rates are less education and less freedom. Well at least when our species dies out, the last few people will have masters degrees. That's the important part, right? >I have no trouble believing a handmaids tail like faction emerging It'd be because you and those like you forced the issue. Go ahead, stick your head in the sand some more. We all know that willful obliviousness to reality can change the rules of the universe themselves, right? Wish it all away!

jandrese 4mo ago

You see a whole lot of panic from industrialists over the birth rate drop in the industrialized world. They claim it is an extinction level event for humanity. This is not quite correct. It is an extinction level event for economic models that assume unbounded growth of the consumer base.

gorjusborg 4mo ago
This is an important distinction: what is good for ecology is not necessarily good for economy. If we need unbounded growth to jeep our economic system to function, its the economic system that is wrong, not nature.
- CuriouslyC 4mo ago
  Hence why the die hard capitalist shills are so set on going to space.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - jay_kyburz 4mo ago
    We should help by shooting them into space.
    - mfru 4mo ago
      you can save even more co2 and costs by leaving the "into space" part out
- kruffalon 4mo ago
  Capitalist economy. Economies can exist in many different ways. At its core it is just a way to describe how we move resources between ourselves and that can be done in many, many ways.
  - nradov 4mo ago