It is not incompetence - it is orthogonal. I worked with an excellent software engineer who was rather smart - way above average. However, he believed in "Overunity energy" and paid actual money to attend conferences and buy the books. Some folks are predeposed to believing conspiracies and seeing order where there's chaos.
(1) the Google engineer who "knows" what sentience looks like when chatting with a low-grade AI chatbot (2) the articles by Kevin Roose and other professional reporters about AI chatbots, believing they witnessed authentic confessions from ChatGPT that it wanted to become skynet, evincing a stunning lack of understanding of the function of large language models. (3) NASA Astronaut Edgar Mitchell who came to believe in UFOs and became cited by conspiracy theorists for decades.
People at the centers of professional, institutional respectability who didn't have the wherewithal to step back and put thier impulses under the light of rational examination.
It's not without precedent, and we don't have anything other than second order interpertation of information that hasn't been revealed, but we do have a blizzard of breathless reporting enteratining presumptions that are way ahead of any actual established facts.
From his podcast, it is obvious that Roose knows exactly what he dealt with in the Sydney affair. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t unnerving.
1. People with mental illness.
2. People with low intelligence who are unable/don't understand logic, the scientific method, and concepts like ecree, They are easily fooled by others. They may also have a bias like hating or mistrusting the government.
3. People who are insecure. Being a conspiracy theorist makes you feel smarter than other people as you are part of a select group of who know the truth. The masses are stupid or as they say now "asleep" but you've figured it all out via Google.
This is why much of their talk is less about how they can prove their claims and more about the people who don't believe. They refer to them as "sheep" or "not awake. The focus for them is that they are right which may help with their insecurities.
4. People who don't feel they have a purpose in life and are looking for a meaning. Want to be a part of a group that is bound by something important and there's almost no effort to join? Bam, now your job is to get that information out there and covert the masses, a goal that will never be finished and thankfully take up your entire life.
5. People who were originally lured in because of the other reasons and no longer believe. Because they made it their life, maybe spent excess money, wrote books or made absolute claims they don't want to look stupid so they never admit their change. This is especially an issue on the internet where the whole world can fest on your failure.
Now, if on top of the solar energy, we assuem that we will have fusion energy available within a few 100 years, energy available may easily grow way more than 100x of today's production.
Also, if efficiency continues to increase, for instance due to AI development, nanotech, biotech, etc, we may be able to build almost any amount of infrastructure given the atoms we have available in the Earth's crust. Including multi-story farms, feeding electric lighting to power photosynthesis.
In fact, I'm not aware of any hard limits anywhere near this side of 1 billion people. As far as I know, there are billions of billions of kg of most critical elements available on earth, or in the order of 1+ billion kg per person, even if we're 1 billion people. Our ability to organize these atoms into whatever combination we want (including human bodies) is primarily limited by energy.
And even with 1 billion people, it will take a while before we run out of hydrogen for fusion power.
Humans are a species of animals. Recent environmental changes has caused a sharp decline in evolutionary fitness (=reproduction rate) for this population. This has happened to millions of species in the past, and in many (if not most) cases, the population adapted to the new environment, and the fitness grew back to or beyond replacement rate.
Also, this can happen quite a lot faster than some seem to imagine. While it takes a long time for completely new mutations to make it into the gene pool, the gene pool already contains a huge diversity of genes coding for different types of traits, including mental traits. Often, all that is needed to adapt to a new environment, is for the relative frequency of these genes to change.
For instance, many people seem to have a built-in oxytocin response when around young children. A boost in frequency to all genes promoting/strenghtening this mechanism may eventually make the need-to-have-baby emotion in most women stronger than the need-to-have-orgasm drive in the horniest of 18-year-olds.
And if these genes are already in the gene pool, just with a low frequency, they could easily become dominant over 10-40 generations.
In other words, if at some point the kinds of environmental change that cause population decline slows down, I don't think it's likely that the birth rate stays below replacement forever. (If it does, we'll go extinct, of course).
Also, I'm not making predictions about "forever". Rather, my prediction is that the reproduction rate is likely to come back above the replacement rate very quickly, compared to evolutionary time.
My guess is somewhere between 100 to 1000 years, if human societies go on approximately like today, and we don't have some kind of apocalypse, AI takeover or totalitarian world government.
Assuming of course: - We've "solved" fusion, and can produce near-unlimited amounts of electricity - Per person energy/resource consumption is cut to an absolute minimum. Most tools, machines etc are designed to last virtually forever, instead of having planned obsolescence - We build farming buildings that are 100 stories tall, and produce light from electricity instead of relying on sunlight to grow plants. - Recycling processes and other activities that are labor intensive today can be made 1-3 orders of magnitude more efficient by AI and better access to cheap energy. - We are able to handle the sociological aspects of such population density
Earth's population density is currently at 16/km^2, or 62500m^2/person. If we multiply the population by 100, that's still 625m^2/person.
We clearly have enough space, and probably enough atoms (of each type) to support one billion. So I think if we have enough energy, technology and organize it perfectly, it should be technically possible.
In fact, given the fact that each American already spends almost 100x more energy than most people did 500 years ago, it may be even easier than is assumed above, if we assume that resource consumption is cut to near subsistence levels.
Obviously, such a world would be quite dystopian, making the USSR seem positively cheerful. But impossible?
I mean anything is possible (for additional nightmares: look at factory farming of chickens).
Just not livable.
He was making the argument as a response to being triggered by "liberal" policies about climate change and human footprint.