They’ll be wrong about the generation part only. The “exponential growth” is needed to move from “we are in the last 2⁄3 of humanity” to “we are in the last few generations”. Deny exponential growth (and SIA), then the first assumption is still correct, but the second is wrong.
They’ll be wrong about the generation part only. The “exponential growth” is needed to move from “we are in the last 2⁄3 of humanity” to “we are in the last few generations”. Deny exponential growth (and SIA), then the first assumption is still correct, but the second is wrong.
But that’s the important part. It’s called the “Doomsday Argument” for a reason: it concludes that doomsday is imminent.
Of course the last 2⁄3 is still going to be 2⁄3 of the total. So is the first 2⁄3.
Imminent doomsday is the only non-trivial conclusion, and it relies on the assumption that exponential growth will continue right up to a doomsday.