You made many interesting points here, some of which I wasn't aware of. But I think I disagree with the gist of this post.
For example, you mainly argue that overpopulation is harmless by taking three approaches. One approach is to say that the Earth isn't a closed system.
I want to be practical about this: space colonization is sci fi at this moment. And we aren't doing much about solar energy.
Two, you say people, in order to grow, need just food and water.
True, but, again, let's be practical: you think the rich are just going to equally distribute all their wealth? I don't see that happening now, so I've no reason to think it will happen in the future. Death and war are more likely, I think.
Your third approach is to say that people are in fact having less children. I agree with this, and it's why I think a true appreciation of the issue of overpopulation involves the realization that it's really a two-pronged problem: on the ONE hand you have overpopulation, and on the OTHER you have the bankrupting of the entire economy if the opposite of overpopulation ensues, i.e. if the average population keeps getting older because of better healthcare coupled with lowering fertility. There's no way (according to economists) the young population can sustain the increasingly older population.
Well, there IS a way, and it's called defeating aging by means of scientific immortality, but that's another topic altogether! You mention this in your closing paragraph, even mention the fact that the world is getting older and the natural follow-up to that is the transhumanistic movement, but I don't think the reader who doesn't already know about this stuff appreciates how that relates to the rest of your argument in the post.
I also agree with your meliorist stance at the end of the post: human ingenuity. I too am hopeful, and even positive, that it will solve our issues. But that's long-term, and in the meantime we might screw things up for a lot of people.
Thanks a lot for pointing out some issues with my approach.
I am quite aware, that I should have extended this post and included more quality of life aspects.
At least in the German adaptation of that post I included an update to clarify some of the problems with the used data and missing information. I will maybe write a follow-up post about this topic in the future in order to address some of these issues, many people pointed out.
Personally, I don't think that is going to happen. Judging by the data regarding the number of violent conflicts and relative death tolls, we are still living in an incredibly peaceful time. I don't think, wealth needs to be redistributed, but with more and more ways to produce cheaper goods, the overall quality of life will increase. This is something, which already seems to happen in many countries.
Again, this is most likely true. But this is not so much an issue of demographic change but a flaw of the way societies take care of their older population. In Germany, for example, this is mainly done by laws and taxation - which, of course cannot work out, since the mere numbers don't add up anymore. I think people need to be more aware, that there best shot is to invest their own money wisely, so they have something to live on as they grow older. The state policies are only going to fuck things up.
Yeah, you are right. And, in fact, you just gave me a reason to write a series about transhumanism as well. Thanks a lot for increasing my (quite long) bucket list :D
Steven Pinker made it adequately clear I think that the world is improving on a number of measures, so I'm with you on being positive about the future.
I'll be looking forward to your transhumanism series!
Hey @alexander.alexis
Here's a tip for your valuable feedback! @Utopian-io loves and incentivises informative comments.
Contributing on Utopian
Learn how to contribute on our website.
Want to chat? Join us on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV.
Vote for Utopian Witness!