There are 8 billion people already. More than enough to last a million years at below replacement levels. I really don't think "population collapse" is a legitimate issue for sane people to seriously fret about.
I appreciate the aversion to catastrophism. You are wrong though with "more than enough to last a million years at below replacement levels". If we're extremely generous and go with a TFR of 1.99, if we assume zero infant mortality, and if we assume a generation gap of 40 years, the calculation is as follows:
years until humans go extinct = 40 * log(1/8,000,000,000)/log(1.99/2) = ~182,000 years.
Doesn't sound that bad, I agree. If we plug in more alarming numbers and go with the UK's current TFR (1.41), replacement rate (2.08), and generational gap (30.9 years), it's 1,812 years until one human is left. It'll be 714 years until only a million humans are left. That sounds considerably worse. Also once population is small enough (10-100k) then stochastic events (epidemics, disasters etc) make it possible to jump to extinction quite easily. Not to mention genetic bottlenecks. Beyond just numbers, one of the main concerns is a massive skewing of demographics. Economically and socially, we're not ready for a top-heavy age distribution.
Obviously these are abstract calculations with static parameters. The point of my essay is to say that the parameters will start moving in a positive direction soon because our culture is already showing signs of swinging in a pro-natal direction, and therefore we shouldn't worry. But sustained low TFR is worrisome just due to the nature of exponential decay and the false sense of security that comes from population lag effects.
I'm happy for my essay to contribute to awareness of the issue, but agree with your basic premise that we shouldn't fret.
>>it's 1,812 years until one human is left. It'll be 714 years until only a million humans are left. That sounds considerably worse.
Are you going to live for 1,812 years, or 714 years? What difference does it make to you what happens to humanity over such a long period of time? The oldest person ever recorded lived to be only 122 years old. Assuming that I will live to be 122 (which is far from certain; most likely it will be less), humanity will not have time to die out during that period. And after me, let the flood come. The main thing for me is to earn money now so that I will have enough for proper care in my old age. Children will take care of an old man, right? So I don't need children, I need money.
Hey all power to you. I suspect that money can’t compensate for a family and a genetic legacy, but I may well be wrong and you may live an excellent life into old age.
I fundamentally disagree with your disregard for humanity in 1000+ years, but that’s fine. I think the point about the cultural homeostasis is that pro-natalists don’t have to expend government resources or effort trying to persuade those with your opinion, because I think there will be enough organic/intrinsic persuasion to the pro-natal worldview anyways.
In that sense, your approach is the game-theoretical optimum (assuming your prediction is true that money is all you need in old age). Fair play!
Thanks for doing the math, but the point still stands.
We are both looking at time frames far too long for extrapolation to have any serious predictive value at all.
Maybe look at mouse utopia experiment 25 to get some biological clues as to what causes population collapse (basically boredom).
An old-heavy demo will hopefully just dismantle socialism quicker. I am beyond ready for that. Everything has a silver lining. And I struggle to see any number of humans greater than 1 billion as really being a net positive for anything (even humans).
Fair points. I disagree with the last point, I think. From a techno-progressive perspective more humans is better without limit (assuming these humans have high quality of life and are productive). The whole “a trillion humans means 500 Einsteins” argument. I also think propagation to other planets is a moral imperative to preserve humanity, and doing so with only 1 billion of us seems less likely perhaps?
Thanks for the help. I have been struggling to understand the priors of the natalist crowd. The “a trillion humans means 500 Einsteins” is a useful way of understanding the mindset (even if it is, in reality, probably far too simplistic to be accurate).
(1) I think few physical/natural/real systems are actually optimal at asymptotic values of infinity. Usually that implies an overly simplified analysis which has neglected the counter actions. A classic example is that high school physics tells you that dropped objects accelerate to infinite speed, but in reality the neglected friction causes a terminal velocity (a maximum speed). (And Einstein is famous, of course, for showing finite speed, even in the absence of all friction).
(2) As a Scientist, I think the Einstein argument is also naïve. Science actually proceeds at a fixed rate irrespective of the number of people doing it. Each new finding takes finite time to be accepted, and then to propagate. At that point many people all do the same thing all at once. A classical example of this is that Non-Euclidean geometry was discovered by 4 people all within a few years of each other (in 1830), and all unknowing of the 3 others. This is called "the time was ripe". It is not "people" (or the number of them) that are the bottleneck in science/technology for the last 150 years, it is the time it takes for new ideas to propagate and then combine.
This is why I think a faith-based prior like "more is always better" is likely not a good axiom to be working from when making decisions.
You make a great case. I’m interested why you think 1 billion is optimal, then? I agree infinite seems silly and suboptimal, but is 1 billion better than 8? Why can’t it be 30 billion for planet earth, and another 10 for Mars, say?
And if we grant 1 billion is the optimum, why is it better than 500 million? If I can understand your answers to these then we might converge on agreement
1 billion was made up. I haven't thought enough about population to have come to a conclusion about what might be the optimum. Note that an optimum requires a cost function to optimize (which there might be little agreement on).
If your personal cost function is technology expansion, then maybe when scientific papers get over 90% useless (we are there), and innovation is more often time than number of people limited (we are there), then you might guess that you are getting past the right order of magnitude.
If you think of biological impact, then deer (same size animal) are about 80 million on the planet. 10x that because we can farm is about 0.8 billion (same as 1800). 10x that again (now) would likely be pushing the natural biological state of things. And indeed population growth is naturally slowing significantly at this concentration.
Why? I think because we are biological organisms at the end of the day. Mouse utopia experiment 25 shows that in over-dense situations, even with all physical requirements met, animal psychology goes haywire. Leading to high rates of autism, gangs, homosexuality, asexuality, and ultimately population collapse. Does any of that sound familiar?
Maybe if technology creation is your goal, you want to consider not over-balancing the system, and sending it into an unstable mode. Every mouse utopia (and there were at least 25) led to a population of zero. Maybe greedy is not such a great idea in this situation. Maybe Icarus has a tale to tell you.
P.S. Personally, I think you should have 6 kids. But that "everybody should have kids" is not well thought out.
I am privileged in many ways, yes! So are you, dear anonymous commenter. Do you wish to engage with any of the points in the essay or is that all from you?
There are 8 billion people already. More than enough to last a million years at below replacement levels. I really don't think "population collapse" is a legitimate issue for sane people to seriously fret about.
I appreciate the aversion to catastrophism. You are wrong though with "more than enough to last a million years at below replacement levels". If we're extremely generous and go with a TFR of 1.99, if we assume zero infant mortality, and if we assume a generation gap of 40 years, the calculation is as follows:
years until humans go extinct = 40 * log(1/8,000,000,000)/log(1.99/2) = ~182,000 years.
Doesn't sound that bad, I agree. If we plug in more alarming numbers and go with the UK's current TFR (1.41), replacement rate (2.08), and generational gap (30.9 years), it's 1,812 years until one human is left. It'll be 714 years until only a million humans are left. That sounds considerably worse. Also once population is small enough (10-100k) then stochastic events (epidemics, disasters etc) make it possible to jump to extinction quite easily. Not to mention genetic bottlenecks. Beyond just numbers, one of the main concerns is a massive skewing of demographics. Economically and socially, we're not ready for a top-heavy age distribution.
Obviously these are abstract calculations with static parameters. The point of my essay is to say that the parameters will start moving in a positive direction soon because our culture is already showing signs of swinging in a pro-natal direction, and therefore we shouldn't worry. But sustained low TFR is worrisome just due to the nature of exponential decay and the false sense of security that comes from population lag effects.
I'm happy for my essay to contribute to awareness of the issue, but agree with your basic premise that we shouldn't fret.
>>it's 1,812 years until one human is left. It'll be 714 years until only a million humans are left. That sounds considerably worse.
Are you going to live for 1,812 years, or 714 years? What difference does it make to you what happens to humanity over such a long period of time? The oldest person ever recorded lived to be only 122 years old. Assuming that I will live to be 122 (which is far from certain; most likely it will be less), humanity will not have time to die out during that period. And after me, let the flood come. The main thing for me is to earn money now so that I will have enough for proper care in my old age. Children will take care of an old man, right? So I don't need children, I need money.
Hey all power to you. I suspect that money can’t compensate for a family and a genetic legacy, but I may well be wrong and you may live an excellent life into old age.
I fundamentally disagree with your disregard for humanity in 1000+ years, but that’s fine. I think the point about the cultural homeostasis is that pro-natalists don’t have to expend government resources or effort trying to persuade those with your opinion, because I think there will be enough organic/intrinsic persuasion to the pro-natal worldview anyways.
In that sense, your approach is the game-theoretical optimum (assuming your prediction is true that money is all you need in old age). Fair play!
My personal experience is that family is priceless, so that is a prior I (and many others historically) can agree with.
And "pro-natalists don’t have to expend government resources or effort trying to persuade" anybody, because that is not the proper role of government.
If you want more babies then provide parents (or a minimum, pregnant women) higher social status.
Society itself, and not government, bestows status.
I don't actually want "more babies". I want more high IQ babies, and more babies with two caring/active/involved parents. The others are a net drag.
Thanks for doing the math, but the point still stands.
We are both looking at time frames far too long for extrapolation to have any serious predictive value at all.
Maybe look at mouse utopia experiment 25 to get some biological clues as to what causes population collapse (basically boredom).
An old-heavy demo will hopefully just dismantle socialism quicker. I am beyond ready for that. Everything has a silver lining. And I struggle to see any number of humans greater than 1 billion as really being a net positive for anything (even humans).
Fair points. I disagree with the last point, I think. From a techno-progressive perspective more humans is better without limit (assuming these humans have high quality of life and are productive). The whole “a trillion humans means 500 Einsteins” argument. I also think propagation to other planets is a moral imperative to preserve humanity, and doing so with only 1 billion of us seems less likely perhaps?
Thanks for the help. I have been struggling to understand the priors of the natalist crowd. The “a trillion humans means 500 Einsteins” is a useful way of understanding the mindset (even if it is, in reality, probably far too simplistic to be accurate).
(1) I think few physical/natural/real systems are actually optimal at asymptotic values of infinity. Usually that implies an overly simplified analysis which has neglected the counter actions. A classic example is that high school physics tells you that dropped objects accelerate to infinite speed, but in reality the neglected friction causes a terminal velocity (a maximum speed). (And Einstein is famous, of course, for showing finite speed, even in the absence of all friction).
(2) As a Scientist, I think the Einstein argument is also naïve. Science actually proceeds at a fixed rate irrespective of the number of people doing it. Each new finding takes finite time to be accepted, and then to propagate. At that point many people all do the same thing all at once. A classical example of this is that Non-Euclidean geometry was discovered by 4 people all within a few years of each other (in 1830), and all unknowing of the 3 others. This is called "the time was ripe". It is not "people" (or the number of them) that are the bottleneck in science/technology for the last 150 years, it is the time it takes for new ideas to propagate and then combine.
This is why I think a faith-based prior like "more is always better" is likely not a good axiom to be working from when making decisions.
You make a great case. I’m interested why you think 1 billion is optimal, then? I agree infinite seems silly and suboptimal, but is 1 billion better than 8? Why can’t it be 30 billion for planet earth, and another 10 for Mars, say?
And if we grant 1 billion is the optimum, why is it better than 500 million? If I can understand your answers to these then we might converge on agreement
1 billion was made up. I haven't thought enough about population to have come to a conclusion about what might be the optimum. Note that an optimum requires a cost function to optimize (which there might be little agreement on).
If your personal cost function is technology expansion, then maybe when scientific papers get over 90% useless (we are there), and innovation is more often time than number of people limited (we are there), then you might guess that you are getting past the right order of magnitude.
If you think of biological impact, then deer (same size animal) are about 80 million on the planet. 10x that because we can farm is about 0.8 billion (same as 1800). 10x that again (now) would likely be pushing the natural biological state of things. And indeed population growth is naturally slowing significantly at this concentration.
Why? I think because we are biological organisms at the end of the day. Mouse utopia experiment 25 shows that in over-dense situations, even with all physical requirements met, animal psychology goes haywire. Leading to high rates of autism, gangs, homosexuality, asexuality, and ultimately population collapse. Does any of that sound familiar?
Maybe if technology creation is your goal, you want to consider not over-balancing the system, and sending it into an unstable mode. Every mouse utopia (and there were at least 25) led to a population of zero. Maybe greedy is not such a great idea in this situation. Maybe Icarus has a tale to tell you.
P.S. Personally, I think you should have 6 kids. But that "everybody should have kids" is not well thought out.
This is giving privileged author
I am privileged in many ways, yes! So are you, dear anonymous commenter. Do you wish to engage with any of the points in the essay or is that all from you?