I can imagine humanity going voluntary extinct in the future. Making children is just one possible activity among many, and the number of possible activities and their attractiveness is probably going to grow, so at some moment most people may go “meh, too much effort”. Or there can can be some weird economical effect where most people won’t be able to afford children—not because of meaningful resources such as food, but because of some bullshit reason (something that becomes infinitely expensive for some stupid reason, such as university education, will be considered a basic human right and you are not allowed to have kids if you can’t afford to buy it for them). Or there could be a passively-aggressively unfriendly AI which can’t hurt or defy humans openly, but may subtly discourage them from reproducing, because it is allowed to destroy humanity as long as it happens voluntarily and nonviolently. All of this seems possible to me, and yet the article seems needlessly alarmist.
The combination of technological progress and population decline could make children much cheaper. Just ask people how many children they would have, if they had universal basic income, affordable housing, affordable robotic nanny, and affordable robotic tutors. (As opposed to today, when often both parents need a job, stuff is expensive, and yet most people choose to have kids.)
I am curious about the specific details of “minor disasters” that can wipe out a population of 500M, but cannot wipe out a population of 8000M. Fewer people would probably still be distributed across the planet. For example, lower population density and more time spent online would reduce the risk of pandemics.
The attractiveness of “making children” can also grow. Imagine an automated robotic baby changing table.
When it’s robots that do all the boring or messy bits, leaving parents with only the fun bits, then parenting becomes more attractive. But sure, maybe video games are winning out in the attractiveness race.
Although a population decline requires people die of something. So this scenario makes sense if we invent super video games, but not immortality.
So this scenario makes sense if we invent super video games, but not immortality.
Looking at what we have now—there are 3D video games, 3D porn, but no 150 years old people (and few actually live to 100) -- unfortunately, the invention of video games is much easier task.
I can imagine humanity going voluntary extinct in the future. Making children is just one possible activity among many, and the number of possible activities and their attractiveness is probably going to grow, so at some moment most people may go “meh, too much effort”. Or there can can be some weird economical effect where most people won’t be able to afford children—not because of meaningful resources such as food, but because of some bullshit reason (something that becomes infinitely expensive for some stupid reason, such as university education, will be considered a basic human right and you are not allowed to have kids if you can’t afford to buy it for them). Or there could be a passively-aggressively unfriendly AI which can’t hurt or defy humans openly, but may subtly discourage them from reproducing, because it is allowed to destroy humanity as long as it happens voluntarily and nonviolently. All of this seems possible to me, and yet the article seems needlessly alarmist.
The combination of technological progress and population decline could make children much cheaper. Just ask people how many children they would have, if they had universal basic income, affordable housing, affordable robotic nanny, and affordable robotic tutors. (As opposed to today, when often both parents need a job, stuff is expensive, and yet most people choose to have kids.)
I am curious about the specific details of “minor disasters” that can wipe out a population of 500M, but cannot wipe out a population of 8000M. Fewer people would probably still be distributed across the planet. For example, lower population density and more time spent online would reduce the risk of pandemics.
The attractiveness of “making children” can also grow. Imagine an automated robotic baby changing table.
When it’s robots that do all the boring or messy bits, leaving parents with only the fun bits, then parenting becomes more attractive. But sure, maybe video games are winning out in the attractiveness race.
Although a population decline requires people die of something. So this scenario makes sense if we invent super video games, but not immortality.
Looking at what we have now—there are 3D video games, 3D porn, but no 150 years old people (and few actually live to 100) -- unfortunately, the invention of video games is much easier task.