Everybody knows about the decline in birthrates. Fewer people understand why—or just how significantly it could transform society in the next few decades.
I'm still not convinced. I see the world more crowded than ever before, and in that context people are having fewer children. Normal response. To those who say this creates a problem in 200 years - well that's just because you don't you expect the fertility rate to change again in response to falling population. Why? That logic sounds wrong.
Fertility is probably somewhat thermostatic to population levels. Or at least, when we have failed to create the housing, university spots, etc for more population, don't expect people to run into a wall at full speed by continuing to reproduce at high numbers.
Most projections I see have a higher population in 2100 than we have now. Hardly feels like a crisis. People try to make a global warming analogy, but no it is much easier to change direction on fertility than to remove tons of CO2 from the atmosphere!
BTW, I remember when the world population was "only" 4 to 5 billion people. It was fine! The quick mention of the environmental benefits of lower population deserved more discussion. Climate forecasts project a loss of farmland and a reduced carrying capacity for the planet. Spending some time at lower numbers could really lighten the impact we are having - let some forests grow back and give the planet a moment to breathe.
One potential development that was not covered was the possibility of increased fertility for older women through IVF, which would make today's estimate of TFR a bit on the low side.
Also, I'd love to know the professor's view on urban vs. suburban vs. rural. I'd guess that declining population would mean greater value in city living. Large cities will maintain their "pubs" and schools and hospitals.
People used to be optimistic about the future. I don't think anyone really is anymore. If AI doesn't completely obliterate human society, then climate change, war (obviously war is far from new but it's on another level of devastation now), disease or some other crisis probably will. I don't have a 401K because my 65th birthday isn't until 2059 and the idea that the world of 2059 will be one where my 401K matters at all is completely ridiculous to me.
But I'm sure my parents and grandparents thought the same thing at some point. My doomerism is mostly about AI and advanced robotics. I really do believe both have the potential to change the world so rapidly and so thoroughly that no human, even the powerful ones, will be able to keep up.
Have we considered kids aren’t as fun anymore with technology? They stare at phones all day. Talk back. Lotta people realized vacations are better without kids. As are weekends. Might be overthinking the room.
I know the “nothing matters except fertility and AI” comment is a little hyperbolic on purpose, but it’s interesting that he holds that view without much moderation on what the future will look like because of AI. If you’re thinking about 2100 at all, you’re probably in the “AI as Normal Technology” school of thought. That’s a completely reasonable place to land, but also supports that there might be other interesting things going on the world besides AI.
I'm still not convinced. I see the world more crowded than ever before, and in that context people are having fewer children. Normal response. To those who say this creates a problem in 200 years - well that's just because you don't you expect the fertility rate to change again in response to falling population. Why? That logic sounds wrong.
Fertility is probably somewhat thermostatic to population levels. Or at least, when we have failed to create the housing, university spots, etc for more population, don't expect people to run into a wall at full speed by continuing to reproduce at high numbers.
Most projections I see have a higher population in 2100 than we have now. Hardly feels like a crisis. People try to make a global warming analogy, but no it is much easier to change direction on fertility than to remove tons of CO2 from the atmosphere!
BTW, I remember when the world population was "only" 4 to 5 billion people. It was fine! The quick mention of the environmental benefits of lower population deserved more discussion. Climate forecasts project a loss of farmland and a reduced carrying capacity for the planet. Spending some time at lower numbers could really lighten the impact we are having - let some forests grow back and give the planet a moment to breathe.
Great interview.
One potential development that was not covered was the possibility of increased fertility for older women through IVF, which would make today's estimate of TFR a bit on the low side.
Also, I'd love to know the professor's view on urban vs. suburban vs. rural. I'd guess that declining population would mean greater value in city living. Large cities will maintain their "pubs" and schools and hospitals.
People used to be optimistic about the future. I don't think anyone really is anymore. If AI doesn't completely obliterate human society, then climate change, war (obviously war is far from new but it's on another level of devastation now), disease or some other crisis probably will. I don't have a 401K because my 65th birthday isn't until 2059 and the idea that the world of 2059 will be one where my 401K matters at all is completely ridiculous to me.
But I'm sure my parents and grandparents thought the same thing at some point. My doomerism is mostly about AI and advanced robotics. I really do believe both have the potential to change the world so rapidly and so thoroughly that no human, even the powerful ones, will be able to keep up.
Have we considered kids aren’t as fun anymore with technology? They stare at phones all day. Talk back. Lotta people realized vacations are better without kids. As are weekends. Might be overthinking the room.
I know the “nothing matters except fertility and AI” comment is a little hyperbolic on purpose, but it’s interesting that he holds that view without much moderation on what the future will look like because of AI. If you’re thinking about 2100 at all, you’re probably in the “AI as Normal Technology” school of thought. That’s a completely reasonable place to land, but also supports that there might be other interesting things going on the world besides AI.