Hacker News Reader

Comment by hermitcrab | Hacker News Reader

This article is a huge wobbly tower of questionable assumptions.

You'd imagine if it was very predictable, that long term population projections wouldn't radically swing by billions and decades of trajectory every few years like they do.

As far as I can tell, this narrative has been pushed by prominent EA'ers and such to try to counter the calls for research/investment in renewables and responsibility over the data on climate change with culture war fears demanding short-term growth.

Addressing the largest stated reasons for not having children (affordability and child care), or physics-defying carbon capture machines, What could actually exist in 30 years I wonder?

AI doomerism (and the associated OpenAI soap opera) showed much of the rationalist / effective altruist sphere as the ersatz-religion founded on questionable epistemology that it is.

I thought it was "infinite growth optimism" that showed much of the rationalist / effective altruist sphere as the ersatz-religion founded on questionable epistemology that it is.

Robin Hanson is not an AI doomer.

True. I stopped reading after

> However, roughly thirty years from now world population will peak, and the world economy will peak not long after. Population and the economy will soon fall by a factor of two every one or two generations.

Yeah, how dare they make such an accurate prediction based on all we know about population mechanics, limits to resources, and historical growth assosiated with both? We're here to be entertained and have our morale boosted, not think!

Population predictions are one thing. But saying the same thing for the world economy is absolutely baseless.

I disagree, it’s too soon to tell whether the prediction is accurate. Maybe it’s obvious to you, but I’d at least like to see that prediction justified. I don’t see how accepting an unjustified opinion is thinking.

The future world population can be predicted fairly far in advance (many decades) because it depends on current fertility rates and the fact that life expectancy doesn't change drastically. And even fertility rates follow predicable trends.

That assumes that new humans can be only by women.

There is no reason, why artificial womb, possibly with multiple selection box for genes, is not a very realistic possibility, along with state funded child rearing services. (see Norway)

You mean a government agency will produce children? Why would the population vote for funding this if they don't want children themselves?

1. Reproduction is already heavily subsidized in many countries, be it direct grants, tax breats and so on. This is nothing new.

2. Most people actually want children. Getting someone to actually procreate with that will share burden.

3. Investing in children should hel to fund future pension payments. There is pretty good case for self-interest.

4. China won't care, neither will Russia or other parts of world.

5. Countries that will do that will have a better outcome than countries full of retirees. Unless AI takes over, natural selection will take care of rest

If this happens, I assume Chinese breeding facilities will optimize for producing children with high cognitive ability. Via selective breeding, embryo selection, or genetic engineering.

How do you know it’s accurate?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com