I don’t know how much this reflects the site consensus, but I have two responses to the overpopulation argument.
Coarse response: What’s the problem with overpopulation? It’s that resources get used up and the world can’t support everybody. And what’s the problem with that? People die. Eliminating death by aging with the result that some starve may still result in less total death.
Sophisticated response: As education improves and wealth increases, fertility rates fall. Much of the first world has less than replacement birth rate; US population would be shrinking were it not for immigration. World population is expected to peak around 9 billion around 2050 (source: The Economist Magazine). So as standard of living increases, population growth may slow to the point that it won’t be too hard to legislate limits on reproduction.
Sophisticated response: As education improves and wealth increases, fertility rates fall. Much of the first world has less than replacement birth rate; US population would be shrinking were it not for immigration. World population is expected to peak around 9 billion around 2050 (source: The Economist Magazine). So as standard of living increases, population growth may slow to the point that it won’t be too hard to legislate limits on reproduction.
This is temporary. Genetically speaking we are experiencing a challenge about as severe as that of a major climate shift. Natural selection will eventually cause population growth to continue if left uninterrupted.
The following is by my estimation being selected for:
Later menopause
Earlier menarche and sexual maturation coupled with stronger sexual drive early in life
High time preference
Lower IQ (with stronger selective pressures being experienced by women unfortunately)
Besides lower IQ there is Increased neurodiversity, especially the space that makes academic success harder but does not adversely affect socialization in general.
Stronger ability to rationalize “failure” and convincingly communicate such rationalizations (the price of self-delusion has fallen relative to the ancestral environment)
Desire for children
Religiosity
Almost any categorization of the population will find groups that excel according to these criteria outgrowing others. Even memetic transmission with its low reliability has produced impressive advantages for groups like say the Amish.
What’s the problem with overpopulation? It’s that resources get used up and the world can’t support everybody. And what’s the problem with that? People die.
No, my problem with overpopulation is that people suffer. (And then die in addition to that).
That said, I understand and mostly share your optimism about the results of increased standard of living.
No, my problem with overpopulation is that people suffer. (And then die in addition to that).
That position would only make consistent sense in a world where aging doesn’t cause suffering. Have you been to a nursing home recently? Seen how many painkillers senescent individuals tend to take on a regular basis to mask the symptoms of their diseases?
But if painkillers are a satisfactory solution for the suffering of aging, why do we not propose them to address the suffering of starvation? Surely dying of hunger is not such a bad subjective experience if you can do it while high on morphine.
I don’t know how much this reflects the site consensus, but I have two responses to the overpopulation argument.
Coarse response: What’s the problem with overpopulation? It’s that resources get used up and the world can’t support everybody. And what’s the problem with that? People die. Eliminating death by aging with the result that some starve may still result in less total death.
Sophisticated response: As education improves and wealth increases, fertility rates fall. Much of the first world has less than replacement birth rate; US population would be shrinking were it not for immigration. World population is expected to peak around 9 billion around 2050 (source: The Economist Magazine). So as standard of living increases, population growth may slow to the point that it won’t be too hard to legislate limits on reproduction.
This is temporary. Genetically speaking we are experiencing a challenge about as severe as that of a major climate shift. Natural selection will eventually cause population growth to continue if left uninterrupted.
The following is by my estimation being selected for:
Later menopause
Earlier menarche and sexual maturation coupled with stronger sexual drive early in life
High time preference
Lower IQ (with stronger selective pressures being experienced by women unfortunately)
Besides lower IQ there is Increased neurodiversity, especially the space that makes academic success harder but does not adversely affect socialization in general.
Stronger ability to rationalize “failure” and convincingly communicate such rationalizations (the price of self-delusion has fallen relative to the ancestral environment)
Desire for children
Religiosity
Almost any categorization of the population will find groups that excel according to these criteria outgrowing others. Even memetic transmission with its low reliability has produced impressive advantages for groups like say the Amish.
No, my problem with overpopulation is that people suffer. (And then die in addition to that).
That said, I understand and mostly share your optimism about the results of increased standard of living.
That position would only make consistent sense in a world where aging doesn’t cause suffering. Have you been to a nursing home recently? Seen how many painkillers senescent individuals tend to take on a regular basis to mask the symptoms of their diseases?
But if painkillers are a satisfactory solution for the suffering of aging, why do we not propose them to address the suffering of starvation? Surely dying of hunger is not such a bad subjective experience if you can do it while high on morphine.
If we have a way to prevent everyone in the world from suffering due to malnutrition, I’d consider that a win either way.