“Most of the resources I want are not generated by humans, whereas all of my competition for these resources are human.”
As in that old post about Star Trek’s “Post Scarcity”, there is a fundamentally limited number of La Barre vineyards no matter how egalitarian and utopian your society might claim to be. Housing in a desirable setting, especially with some kind of privacy and personal space, becomes markedly harder to get when twenty billion people also want it.
I think most people, fundamentally, care more about these kinds of scarce goods than they do about non-scarce consumer goods of the kind that could be just as plentiful in a more populous world. Case in point, TVs and bread are cheaper than ever in 1026 America, but people feel more economically pressured than ever because they care much more about having a nice house in a neighborhood where they can safely raise their children, which, at the very least, isn’t any cheaper.
“More people means a more efficient labor market, which isn’t always good for people selling labor.”
In a town of five hundred people, I can work as a lead machinist, and there is likely to be a considerable gap between myself and the second-best machinist. This means that I can ask for a bit more than optimal pay, or work at a bit less than full intensity at all times, and not be at risk of replacement. Applying for a job is likewise less stressful, because there is no need to efficiently sort through thousands of other applicants. In a city of five million people, above-market wages and conditions are harder to argue for, meaning that the amount of time and energy left for leisure or side-projects is markedly reduced.
I note that being “spoiled for choice” is a well-discussed phenomenon that extends beyond the labor market. Better matching to other people is something I would be extremely skeptical about, seeing as rising populations and rising accessibility across cities have coincided with what most people report to be a vastly worse dating market.
“Humans, especially scientists, do not thrive in captivity.”
One might think that doubling the population doubles the number of great scientific minds, and therefore great scientific accomplishments. But this is not straightforwardly true. Intuitively, a Von Neumann has much more incentive to do great things if he is enjoying his life, and sees a bright future for his children. A ruthless labor market and a housing market where even the stereotypical suburban life is now a luxury good leave little time to contemplate the universe, and little motivation to serve the system that brought us to this state.
The Renaissance is an example of a time when a shortage of labor, and the accompanying side-effects, coexisted with a thriving cultural and scientific scene. Historically, nations with extreme population density have had fewer per-capita scientific breakthroughs. Neither of these things guarantee a trend that will hold, but they are points to consider—more people does not straightforwardly lead to a linear improvement in productivity.
The counterpoint consists of three arguments:
“Most of the resources I want are not generated by humans, whereas all of my competition for these resources are human.”
As in that old post about Star Trek’s “Post Scarcity”, there is a fundamentally limited number of La Barre vineyards no matter how egalitarian and utopian your society might claim to be. Housing in a desirable setting, especially with some kind of privacy and personal space, becomes markedly harder to get when twenty billion people also want it.
I think most people, fundamentally, care more about these kinds of scarce goods than they do about non-scarce consumer goods of the kind that could be just as plentiful in a more populous world. Case in point, TVs and bread are cheaper than ever in 1026 America, but people feel more economically pressured than ever because they care much more about having a nice house in a neighborhood where they can safely raise their children, which, at the very least, isn’t any cheaper.
“More people means a more efficient labor market, which isn’t always good for people selling labor.”
In a town of five hundred people, I can work as a lead machinist, and there is likely to be a considerable gap between myself and the second-best machinist. This means that I can ask for a bit more than optimal pay, or work at a bit less than full intensity at all times, and not be at risk of replacement. Applying for a job is likewise less stressful, because there is no need to efficiently sort through thousands of other applicants. In a city of five million people, above-market wages and conditions are harder to argue for, meaning that the amount of time and energy left for leisure or side-projects is markedly reduced.
I note that being “spoiled for choice” is a well-discussed phenomenon that extends beyond the labor market. Better matching to other people is something I would be extremely skeptical about, seeing as rising populations and rising accessibility across cities have coincided with what most people report to be a vastly worse dating market.
“Humans, especially scientists, do not thrive in captivity.”
One might think that doubling the population doubles the number of great scientific minds, and therefore great scientific accomplishments. But this is not straightforwardly true. Intuitively, a Von Neumann has much more incentive to do great things if he is enjoying his life, and sees a bright future for his children. A ruthless labor market and a housing market where even the stereotypical suburban life is now a luxury good leave little time to contemplate the universe, and little motivation to serve the system that brought us to this state.
The Renaissance is an example of a time when a shortage of labor, and the accompanying side-effects, coexisted with a thriving cultural and scientific scene. Historically, nations with extreme population density have had fewer per-capita scientific breakthroughs. Neither of these things guarantee a trend that will hold, but they are points to consider—more people does not straightforwardly lead to a linear improvement in productivity.