5 ms·

Ultimately you have to choose between a scarcity economy and systematic birth control. No possible technological advance can keep up with an exponential growth

Ultimately you have to choose between a scarcity economy and systematic birth control. No possible technological advance can keep up with an exponential growth curve. And the birth control system has to have active eugenic measures, otherwise a genetic collapse can sweep through the population. (The AI servants do not care whether they look after 10 billion genius athletes or 10 billion brainstems in automated nursing homes.)

gizzlon 13y ago
The growth rate is declining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_populat...
- andygates 13y ago
  Came to say this. There's every indication that as humans get healthier, more educated, wealthier and live longer (more post-scarcity, in other words) they switch from "breed more backups" to "nurture one or two offspring", and steady-state popultion comes out of that. The sectors of wealthy economies which are still breeding fast are generally the poor (scarcity again) or people from social groups that were used to breeding lots, who are slowly getting the memo.
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    Prosperity does cause humans to move towards relatively fewer offspring, but only relatively. If the birth rate exceeds the replacement rate by even a tiny fraction in any demographic, the result is exponential growth. And there are prosperous, well-educated demographics with ultra-high birth rates, such as Mormons.
    - notahacker 13y ago
      That assumes the birth rates of other demographics don't fall sufficiently behind the replacement rate to compensate in the short term, and that demographics' birth rates are immutable in the long term. Will the offspring of Mormons maintain their parents' birth rates? Well they're already falling...
rwmj 13y ago
Those aren't the only choices though. One is that you just accept that there will be a large number of unemployed, and account for that by having a basic income guarantee. Another would be creating make-work for many people. And there are others, it's not just "go back to 1970 or birth control".
- JonFish85 13y ago
  If you accept the idea that 70% (and rising) of the population is "useless" (presumably from only an economic view), then the idea of a basic income guarantee becomes difficult to fund I would think.
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    Why? Should not the goal be 100% leisure for everyone? I want a fractional allocation of the output of an army of robots, not a job.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    If you accept the idea that currently 70% of the population is useless, then it's obvious that right now 30% or less of the population can easily provide sustenance and basic income for everyone; and the expectation is that increasing automation will drive that number much lower. The optimistic scenario is that 'soon' (a) 10-20% population working at 20hours per week can produce enough "stuff" to sustain everyone; and (b) there is enough population who would actually do that even if they don't have to - because the work gives them fun, meaning and motivation. If right today everybody was given really good basic income, most would take a long vacation from their jobs - but quite a few would go back to productive work afterwards; not at 80 hour weeks but at a reasonable amount, and it might just be productive enough to sustain the world. And if everybody was given a 'sustenance' basic income, then almost everyone would still be motivated to work for a slightly better lifestyle and luxuries. Again, it wouldn't motivate people to juggle two jobs with raising kids; but we don't actually need anyone to do that, we have more workers than we need anyway.
    - 13y ago
mcv 13y ago
You don't need systematic birth control. Given enough education and good pensions, people tend to have a lot less kids. Give people enough education and security, and the economy may become a lot more sustainable.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  No. Charles Darwin says hi! Less snarkily, evolution always selects for the maximum number of descendants. If education prevents population growth, then evolution will breed a race of uneducatable people. (The high fertility rates of people with ADHD or low IQs are an object lesson.) The only possible outcomes are: 1. Extinction. 2. Population growth up to the carrying capacity. 3. Artificial selection.

gizzlon 13y ago

The growth rate is declining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_populat...

andygates 13y ago
Came to say this. There's every indication that as humans get healthier, more educated, wealthier and live longer (more post-scarcity, in other words) they switch from "breed more backups" to "nurture one or two offspring", and steady-state popultion comes out of that. The sectors of wealthy economies which are still breeding fast are generally the poor (scarcity again) or people from social groups that were used to breeding lots, who are slowly getting the memo.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  Prosperity does cause humans to move towards relatively fewer offspring, but only relatively. If the birth rate exceeds the replacement rate by even a tiny fraction in any demographic, the result is exponential growth. And there are prosperous, well-educated demographics with ultra-high birth rates, such as Mormons.
  - notahacker 13y ago
    That assumes the birth rates of other demographics don't fall sufficiently behind the replacement rate to compensate in the short term, and that demographics' birth rates are immutable in the long term. Will the offspring of Mormons maintain their parents' birth rates? Well they're already falling...

rwmj 13y ago

Those aren't the only choices though. One is that you just accept that there will be a large number of unemployed, and account for that by having a basic income guarantee. Another would be creating make-work for many people. And there are others, it's not just "go back to 1970 or birth control".

JonFish85 13y ago
If you accept the idea that 70% (and rising) of the population is "useless" (presumably from only an economic view), then the idea of a basic income guarantee becomes difficult to fund I would think.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  Why? Should not the goal be 100% leisure for everyone? I want a fractional allocation of the output of an army of robots, not a job.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  If you accept the idea that currently 70% of the population is useless, then it's obvious that right now 30% or less of the population can easily provide sustenance and basic income for everyone; and the expectation is that increasing automation will drive that number much lower. The optimistic scenario is that 'soon' (a) 10-20% population working at 20hours per week can produce enough "stuff" to sustain everyone; and (b) there is enough population who would actually do that even if they don't have to - because the work gives them fun, meaning and motivation. If right today everybody was given really good basic income, most would take a long vacation from their jobs - but quite a few would go back to productive work afterwards; not at 80 hour weeks but at a reasonable amount, and it might just be productive enough to sustain the world. And if everybody was given a 'sustenance' basic income, then almost everyone would still be motivated to work for a slightly better lifestyle and luxuries. Again, it wouldn't motivate people to juggle two jobs with raising kids; but we don't actually need anyone to do that, we have more workers than we need anyway.
  - 13y ago

mcv 13y ago

You don't need systematic birth control. Given enough education and good pensions, people tend to have a lot less kids. Give people enough education and security, and the economy may become a lot more sustainable.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
No. Charles Darwin says hi! Less snarkily, evolution always selects for the maximum number of descendants. If education prevents population growth, then evolution will breed a race of uneducatable people. (The high fertility rates of people with ADHD or low IQs are an object lesson.) The only possible outcomes are: 1. Extinction. 2. Population growth up to the carrying capacity. 3. Artificial selection.