28 ms·

A system where people can survive and reproduce without working can't end well. Imagine it in the context of computer resource management - "every program dese

A system where people can survive and reproduce without working can't end well. Imagine it in the context of computer resource management - "every program deserves this much RAM and this much CPU". When you have randomly varying, recombining programs, what will the result be after 50 generations? Eventually a program will evolve to reproduce faster, and it will come to dominate the population. Why would you think that such a thing wouldn't happen with human beings, too? What do you think happens when you provide unlimited free food to a population of rats? A few continue being "productive" - searching for new food supplies, etc. but they get out-reproduced by the ones who just eat all day. So the population explodes, eventually the food runs out, and then they all die. So overall I think that a global basic income, combined with unlimited reproduction, would have a horrible outcome for humanity.

llamataboot 12y ago
So just a Malthusian argument then? Or are you hiding some contempt of people "getting something for nothing" in there as well?
- waps 12y ago
  Isn't the malthusian argument that either current population has already passed the "support" threshold of the planet or will do so soon ? This is a similar, but not the same argument. He's simply claiming that taking away the brakes on population growth will cause exponential growth. That argument is simply called "evolution theory", and is not controversial at all. Theory [1] and practice [2] agree (note that logistic growth happens because there is a new limit hit. If no new limit comes then we would be on a logistic curve going to +inf. If you calculate that limit, incidentally, you get an exponential growth curve). The counter argument "but won't population growth drop by itself" is false, because the population is not monolithic. If some group decides to limit procreation, that group will simply (and quickly) be replaced by one that won't. And if necessary, by another species. [1] http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/how-populations-grow-the-exponential-and-logistic-13240157 http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/how-populat... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia
  - mikeash 12y ago
    He's also assuming that basic income takes away the brakes on population growth, and that is a completely unsupported idea. Experience so far suggests that the best way to limit human reproduction is to give them more resources, not fewer. The poorest countries in the world are generally growing the fastest, while the richest have trouble just keeping their numbers from falling.
    - waps 12y ago
      > The counter argument "but won't population growth drop by itself" is false, because the population is not monolithic. If some group decides to limit procreation, that group will simply (and quickly) be replaced by one that won't. And if necessary, by another species. You made the exact counter argument I provided in my post, and the reason it is invalid was already stated. To delve a bit more deeply : This is not true. Now before you point out the statistics : it currently appears true. But here's the key : there is nothing in evolution theory that states any particular situation cannot deviate from the predicted value. Large groups can reduce in number. However exceptions (like the one we're currently in) become increasingly unlikely with their duration. It's similar to the second law of thermodynamics. There is no law of physics preventing a billard player from sinking n balls in a single shot, but as n increases it becomes increasingly unlikely. The same is true here. The issue is confused by a specific large population currently choosing to have few kids (mostly because of living space limitations and state support imho), and another population being forced into reproductive limits (Han Chinese). I would argue, therefore, that if you look deeper, the numbers actually support the idea that population growth always happens until it runs into limits. There are other exceptions. There is no law of physics that says that a gas body cannot suddenly drop 100 degrees in temperature without losing any energy at all. This is simply extremely unlikely to happen (what needs to happen is that the collisions between the gas and it's surroundings drops. That is a random occurence, which has an average likelihood that's pretty constant, but nevertheless that drop can just happen for no reason at all). TLDR: If you don't force population to drop, "in the limit", it will increase. No exceptions. There are large random fluctuations that can obscure this over any short timeframe though.
dllthomas 12y ago
"Why would you think that such a thing wouldn't happen with human beings, too?" Because other factors dominate, at human scales. Evolution will get there eventually, but by that time we'll all be so dead and the circumstances will be so different, presuming it's our job to solve that problem now is wrong when there are far more pressing problems.
codemac 12y ago
> What do you think happens when you provide unlimited free food to a population of rats? 1) No idea, I'm not a rat, nor do I have any expertise in the economic lives of rats. Have there been any studies that show this? I don't have access to many journals. 2) Do you think that humans have the same goals, aspirations, and survival behaviors as rats? Do you think they are so similar that given a cage and food, humans would reproduce until they all died out?
- monkeypizza 12y ago
  This link is somewhat relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mautam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mautam In India there's a species of bamboo that flowers every 48 years; during each flowering, the rat population explodes. Once they've eaten all the bamboo, they turn to anything else they can find.
noonespecial 12y ago
>A system where people can survive and reproduce without working can't end well. Thats bad news because very soon its going to collide with a system that produces so well that almost no one needs to work to produce enough for everyone to survive and reproduce. Unless we act positively and intentionally as a species, I'm afraid the defacto answer is to kill all the extra people with poverty.

llamataboot 12y ago

So just a Malthusian argument then? Or are you hiding some contempt of people "getting something for nothing" in there as well?

waps 12y ago
Isn't the malthusian argument that either current population has already passed the "support" threshold of the planet or will do so soon ? This is a similar, but not the same argument. He's simply claiming that taking away the brakes on population growth will cause exponential growth. That argument is simply called "evolution theory", and is not controversial at all. Theory [1] and practice [2] agree (note that logistic growth happens because there is a new limit hit. If no new limit comes then we would be on a logistic curve going to +inf. If you calculate that limit, incidentally, you get an exponential growth curve). The counter argument "but won't population growth drop by itself" is false, because the population is not monolithic. If some group decides to limit procreation, that group will simply (and quickly) be replaced by one that won't. And if necessary, by another species. [1] http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/how-populations-grow-the-exponential-and-logistic-13240157 http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/how-populat... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia
- mikeash 12y ago
  He's also assuming that basic income takes away the brakes on population growth, and that is a completely unsupported idea. Experience so far suggests that the best way to limit human reproduction is to give them more resources, not fewer. The poorest countries in the world are generally growing the fastest, while the richest have trouble just keeping their numbers from falling.
  - waps 12y ago
    > The counter argument "but won't population growth drop by itself" is false, because the population is not monolithic. If some group decides to limit procreation, that group will simply (and quickly) be replaced by one that won't. And if necessary, by another species. You made the exact counter argument I provided in my post, and the reason it is invalid was already stated. To delve a bit more deeply : This is not true. Now before you point out the statistics : it currently appears true. But here's the key : there is nothing in evolution theory that states any particular situation cannot deviate from the predicted value. Large groups can reduce in number. However exceptions (like the one we're currently in) become increasingly unlikely with their duration. It's similar to the second law of thermodynamics. There is no law of physics preventing a billard player from sinking n balls in a single shot, but as n increases it becomes increasingly unlikely. The same is true here. The issue is confused by a specific large population currently choosing to have few kids (mostly because of living space limitations and state support imho), and another population being forced into reproductive limits (Han Chinese). I would argue, therefore, that if you look deeper, the numbers actually support the idea that population growth always happens until it runs into limits. There are other exceptions. There is no law of physics that says that a gas body cannot suddenly drop 100 degrees in temperature without losing any energy at all. This is simply extremely unlikely to happen (what needs to happen is that the collisions between the gas and it's surroundings drops. That is a random occurence, which has an average likelihood that's pretty constant, but nevertheless that drop can just happen for no reason at all). TLDR: If you don't force population to drop, "in the limit", it will increase. No exceptions. There are large random fluctuations that can obscure this over any short timeframe though.

dllthomas 12y ago

"Why would you think that such a thing wouldn't happen with human beings, too?" Because other factors dominate, at human scales. Evolution will get there eventually, but by that time we'll all be so dead and the circumstances will be so different, presuming it's our job to solve that problem now is wrong when there are far more pressing problems.

codemac 12y ago

> What do you think happens when you provide unlimited free food to a population of rats? 1) No idea, I'm not a rat, nor do I have any expertise in the economic lives of rats. Have there been any studies that show this? I don't have access to many journals. 2) Do you think that humans have the same goals, aspirations, and survival behaviors as rats? Do you think they are so similar that given a cage and food, humans would reproduce until they all died out?

monkeypizza 12y ago
This link is somewhat relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mautam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mautam In India there's a species of bamboo that flowers every 48 years; during each flowering, the rat population explodes. Once they've eaten all the bamboo, they turn to anything else they can find.

noonespecial 12y ago

>A system where people can survive and reproduce without working can't end well. Thats bad news because very soon its going to collide with a system that produces so well that almost no one needs to work to produce enough for everyone to survive and reproduce. Unless we act positively and intentionally as a species, I'm afraid the defacto answer is to kill all the extra people with poverty.