| ▲ | bemtevi 8 hours ago |
| I think we're already at a doomsday for population. The inertia of such a large world running on capitalism means we can't do anything about our problems any more, so I feel the bullet has been effectively fired. We're just watching it in slow motion. |
|
| ▲ | weichi 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm not sure what you mean by "capitalism", but the only reason the world's population is so large is that critical technologies like steel, cement, and nitrogen-based fertilizers have been deployed widely. Free markets and the profit motive have been critical drivers of this wide deployment. There are problems with these industries being so strongly profit-motivated, but it seems difficult to figure out what to do about those problems while maintaining current populations levels and material prosperity. |
| |
| ▲ | 233mhz 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > it seems difficult to figure out what to do about those problems while maintaining current populations levels and material prosperity. Pretty sure that's the point of the comment you're replying to. | |
| ▲ | bemtevi 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Capitalism means we can only take actions that benefit individuals in the short term (so, arms race). And the large population means inertia in that incorrect direction. | | |
| ▲ | weichi 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Again, I don't know what you mean by "capitalism", but it's simply not that case that "we can only take actions that benefit individuals in the short term". In the US context, it's certainly true that many companies make many decisions that are driven by short-term profits, but they also make many decisions that are driven by longer timelines (e.g. capital expenditures). I think the same holds true for non-profit entities, including governments (it's a mix of short-term and long-term thinking). I think a better line of attack is that externalities are poorly accounted for in our current economic system. | | |
| ▲ | core_dumped an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's pretty clear you do understand what they mean by "capitalism", then. At this point in many countries the institutions of power have been captured by the owners of capital and many of the issues facing modern society are a direct result of this. People will always act in their best interest and along the interests of their class, and no class is more class conscious than the capital owning class. In the US, this informs policy, which is generally geared at making the capital owning class more money at the expense of everyone else. I don't see any other reason for us to have such excess and have it all seemingly go to waste. We could solve world hunger right now with our advances in technology and [corporate] central planning but that would never happen under this economic system. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Well if what they meant was specifically this nuanced thing, they should have said that nuanced thing, and not said "capitalism". Many other people who also say "capitalism" could be more expressive by saying exactly what they mean, instead of using the word, which is little more than a grumbling noise. | |
| ▲ | MentalM 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > We could solve world hunger right now with our advances in technology and [corporate] central planning Thera are not even a correlation, but straight cause‑and‑effect relation between practice of "our advances in technology and [corporate] central planning" and the hunger |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | kakacik 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yet it will somehow work out. Not ideally, thats just not humane way, in fact probably quite messily, but folks in few decades will look back on whats just another period of history. Some ups, some downs, some mild and some a bit extreme, and thats about it. Moving on, next batch of challenges ahead |
| |
| ▲ | boelboel 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Although I think there's a good chance that this will happen there's no reason to assume that we'll be better or at most slightly worse in the future just because that's all we've experienced in (recent) human history, it's a sort of survivorship bias. | |
| ▲ | gpvos 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It looks like both the climate and biodiversity will be a lot worse than now (with appropriate great migrations). Not sure what is able to compensate for that. Although indeed humans appear able to adjust to any kind of environment. | | |
| ▲ | MrLeap 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | AI agent diversity will be on the upswing, so we've got that going for us. We'll also be more insulated from the climate by virtue of all of our bodies being lashed together into a machine and flesh lattice controlled by the executive overmind. What remains of humanity will be safely cocooned inside the biomechanical membrane between the chaotic outside world and whatever environment the compute prefers. The perspiration of its leviathan breaths and a circulatory system that pumps coolant will ensure the temperature differential. Like how single cell organisms were engulfed into multicellular organisms, so shall our descendants be engulfed. Countless immobile interconnected bio-systems with humanity as its ancestor. They'll less adaptive than us but more optimally specialized. I wonder how recognizable humanity would be when we're tessellated into one large interconnected amalgamation. Furthermore, I wonder how many generations we have left where we'll still need a face and outward looking eyes. Skin cells don't need flagella after all. |
| |
| ▲ | Ekaros 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Things will stabilise somewhere. Not sure at what population level and what technological level. But I am sure at some point they start to rise again. It won't be downward trend to zero for forever. | |
| ▲ | bemtevi 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I do think so, but like you said, messily. | |
| ▲ | watwut 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > folks in few decades will look back on whats just another period of history I mean, of course. I also worry about French Revolution and WWII less then people who had to live it. |
|
|
| ▲ | satvikpendem 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is a Western view not necessarily seen in Asia, such as China which does seem to be solving their problems just fine. |
| |
| ▲ | xienze 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You're making the mistake of not looking down the road far enough. "China's developing rapidly and has all these cool EVs, looks like smooth sailing til the end of time for them!" Their male/female imbalance and TFR < 1 are absolutely massive looming issues. Maybe they'll advance to the "robots do everything and no one ever has to work" end-game and then those things won't really matter, but I wouldn't bet on it. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I would. Why wouldn't you bet on it these days? It's also not as if any country can do better as basically every country has declining fertility rates. And either way I was specifically responding to the point the commenter above me made, that capitalism can't help fix the issues, and my point is that China is fairly capitalist yet they've found ways to fix at least some of their issues. Not sure why you took that to mean that all of their issues will be fixed, that's a straw man. | |
| ▲ | boelboel 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The robot thing was also what japan bet on in the 90s |
| |
| ▲ | bemtevi 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Seriously? China is one of the top polluters and it's a horrible country to live in. No one is solving climate change. The problem is worse than ever. None of the serious problems are being solved. Only made worse. | | |
|
