Random Thoughts XIII - Radioenergopithecocracy

[Kyriakos]

If global population increases are not sustainable, that won't be because I can use a microwave even though I couldn't build one. It will be because there's not enough food for everyone to put in their microwaves. Your two things have nothing to do with one another.

First of all, there is no "if", unless you think the planet can have 1 trillion people etc.
Secondly, since there is an upper limit to population increase, tech progress would either lose pace (like with everything, progressively it becomes more intricate) or a larger percentage of the population will need to create it.
It's easier to see it looking from the other side of time: imagine the tech today, advanced by 1/10 of the scientists able today to advance it: it will go at a much smaller pace. Likewise, when the upper limit of the population is reached, the fraction of it which are advancing tech will have to incease (which is my point), or we will face first a reduction of pace of advancements, and then worse, up to regression.

 

[Farm Boy]

Old paper and ancient flour paste. The cover of the catalog itself is hardbound and cloth wrapped. It's a cross between an attic and a library.

I can't figure out all the cartoons either, but it's fun to see Theodore Roosevelt get ribbed as the power that is.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Mmmmm. See, that 's why I asked. Now I get vicariously to enjoy that smell.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Growth models indicate a "top" on population. Most of us will miss it though.

"World human population has been growing since the end of the Black Death, around the year 1350.[6] A mix of technological advancement that improved agricultural productivity and sanitation and medical advancement that reduced mortality increased population growth. In some geographies, this has slowed through the process called the demographic transition, where many nations with high standards of living have seen a significant slowing of population growth. This is in direct contrast with less developed contexts, where population growth is still happening.[7] Globally, the rate of population growth has declined from a peak of 2.2% per year in 1963.[8] The global human population is projected to peak during the mid-21st century and decline by 2100.[9]"

 

[Farm Boy]

Mmmmm. See, that 's why I asked. Now I get vicariously to enjoy that smell.

I should go back and try to find a few more pictures. I think my ancestor was an early womens' rights advocate. There's a lot of interest in articles regarding the fight for prohibition.

 

[Gori the Grey]

First of all, there is no "if", unless you think the planet can have 1 trillion people etc.
Secondly, since there is an upper limit to population increase, tech progress would either lose pace (like with everything, progressively it becomes more intricate) or a larger percentage of the population will need to create it.

Kyr, you're normally a good thinker. But your thoughts don't follow here. Most crucially, you're here no longer talking about how many people invent vs how many people can just use, but rather about some sense of "progress" that might go faster or slower. We have enough tech already, right now, if nobody invents anything else ever, to sustain our population. Population increases often result from technological advances, so if we invent more stuff, maybe the population will go up (though see Bird's post), but it sounds as though you don't think we need any more increase.

Tech can keep increasing independently of 1) population and 2) what percentage of a population can invent vs use.

 

[Birdjaguar]

First of all, there is no "if", unless you think the planet can have 1 trillion people etc.
Secondly, since there is an upper limit to population increase, tech progress would either lose pace (like with everything, progressively it becomes more intricate) or a larger percentage of the population will need to create it.

Nobody knows what level of population will be sustainable in the future. In the past tech was typically created at the individual or small group level. Nowadays, it is an industry effort usually supported by governments. In the US alone its National Labs are releasing new tech on a regular basis. New tech will likely out pace our ability to utilized quickly. You are just wrong in what you are posting.

 

[Kyriakos]

Kyr, you're normally a good thinker. But your thoughts don't follow here. Most crucially, you're here no longer talking about how many people invent vs how many people can just use, but rather about some sense of "progress" that might go faster or slower. We have enough tech already, right now, if nobody invents anything else ever, to sustain our population. Population increases often result from technological advances, but it sounds as though you don't think we need any more increase.

Tech can keep increasing independently of 1) population and 2) what percentage of a population can invent vs use.

Gori, I don't care about increase in population; it's only a parameter in presenting my estimate about tech progress not being sustainable IF things remain as now in regards to almost all people being consumers instead of knowing how to create critical tech. This is getting a bit grating

@Bj: someone was once happy about moving very fast on a hill. He was going to the bottom. Those labs don't have robotic scientists.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Wait until AI starts inventing new tech!

 

[Gori the Grey]

You're the one who brought in population as a measure of anything, Kyr.

There's no way of measuring the rate of technological progress, and that rate doesn't have to be sustained, nothing rests on its being sustained, and it can be sustained with our present distribution of inventers vs users.

If you're finding the discussion grating, it's probably because your having your logic (which again is generally strong) shown to be faulty in this case.

 

[Kyriakos]

I will not participate more, because I value you more than being branded as losing/winning a web argument

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Bj: someone was once happy about moving very fast on a hill. He was going to the bottom. Those labs don't have robotic scientists.

Not yet, but AI will change the world.

 

[Gori the Grey]

But what about the argument itself, Kyr? It's a cool argument, and we can keep having it. I think I'm correct, and that I'm getting the better of you just now, but maybe not, and I'm open to acknowledging as much if you make the better case.

I too value you more than whichever of us wins any particular argument on this site, but that shouldn't mean we don't have arguments. Don't back out so quickly!

 

[Birdjaguar]

The dress that invented google image search....

Remember when Jennifer Lopez's Grammy Awards dress helped invent Google Image Search?

More than two decades ago, Jennifer Lopez changed the internet forever when she wore a dress so striking it inspired engineers to build Google Image Search.

www.cnn.com

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, it did get a bit frustrating for me, which is a clear sign it should stop ^^
Certainly I could have presented the point in a better way, but when the general form of it was met with such resistance, I don't think there is much use in that. To me, anyway, it does seem evident that IF future tech is significantly more complicated than current (if it is not, we already have clear regression of pace; compare tech 100 years ago, it's why I started with horses being a common mode of transport back then), science will need to be analogously more intricate. And that, to me, implies that the future scientists will need to be better than the ones of today. This isn't about one or two people (such happen in all ages), but a sustainable number to produce new breakthroughs. The population limit comes into play exactly because you can't just have exponential growth to genetically lead to more brilliant scientists, so you will need to have the rest of the population participate more.
This is a progression. A good example would be the pythagorean theorem; it was only formalized in the sixth century BC. Now everyone knows it (unlike in ancient times). Differential equations (used eg for rocket launching to space) are more complicated, but still known and many can master such (perhaps a majority). Now imagine a similar increase of complexity, to that between the pythagorean theorem and rocket-launching math, between what is cutting edge today and its counterpart in the future: and take away the increase in population to compensate for the difference; to me it seems you are left with a clear risk of regression if things stay as they are.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, it did get a bit frustrating for me, which is a clear sign it should stop ^^
Certainly I could have presented the point in a better way, but when the general form of it was met with such resistance, I don't think there is much use in that. To me, anyway, it does seem evident that IF future tech is significantly more complicated than current (if it is not, we already have clear regression of pace; compare tech 100 years ago, it's why I started with horses being a common mode of transport back then), science will need to be analogously more intricate. And that, to me, implies that the future scientists will need to be better than the ones of today. This isn't about one or two people (such happen in all ages), but a sustainable number to produce new breakthroughs. The population limit comes into play exactly because you can't just have exponential growth to genetically lead to more brilliant scientists, so you will need to have the rest of the population participate more.
This is a progression. A good example would be the pythagorean theorem; it was only formalized in the sixth century BC. Now everyone knows it (unlike in ancient times). Differential equations (used eg for rocket launching to space) are more complicated, but still known and many can master such (perhaps a majority). Now imagine a similar increase of complexity, to that between the pythagorean theorem and rocket-launching math, between what is cutting edge today and its counterpart in the future: and take away the increase in population to compensate for the difference; to me it seems you are left with a clear risk of regression if things stay as they are.

I would bet that fewer than 5% of the population know the Pythagorean theorem and can state it in any form. Your linking of tech growth to population is a fundamental flaw in your thinking. Tech grow incrementally and each advance feeds the next. It took 50 years to go from knowing about DNA to mapping it.

 

[Kyriakos]

I would bet that fewer than 5% of the population know the Pythagorean theorem and can state it in any form. Your linking of tech growth to population is a fundamental flaw in your thinking. Tech grow incrementally and each advance feeds the next. It took 50 years to go from knowing about DNA to mapping it.

^Well, I hope that isn't true. Actually, it can't be true.
There are other examples of (compared to current) basic math which should be common knowledge (because it was taught in school) but isn't, due to indifference.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Starting from the last thing, it's not copy/paste if you don't know much about it. Eg one could name 100 math theorems that are known and this in no way means the average person could prove them. Creating a computer is also known tech, doesn't mean you could do it.
Secondly, it's one thing to have a minority create tech/science when the total number of people is x, and another to maintain that if it is 10x. In the last 100 years, the global population has quadrupled, but that in no way means you have four times as many significant scientists - because to increase what exists, better is needed.
So no, in my view it is not sustainable to have this massive gap between a few and the rest, when the total number expands while the critical number does not; for it to be sustainable (without doing anything) there'd have to be no limit to the population increase (let's assume the ideal condition where the latter wouldn't cause collapse for other reasons; still it would not be possible).

I wish you could post this at TrekBBS, as there's an argument going on as to how many people does it take to really run a 24th-century starship (in a Voyager episode, Chakotay says they couldn't do it with fewer than 100 people).

Some people are arguing that with automation for all sorts of things, from exploration and observation to combat to repairs, you don't even need 100 - or even anybody.

I guess none of the people in that argument ever saw the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer"... a fully automated starship was discovered to be a really BAD idea.

Not to mention the social aspects. If you have too few people in an isolated situation for too long and a personality clash happens, there's nobody to go to who isn't already involved and could act as a neutral mediator.


Oh, and that Pythagorean theorem stuff?

a² + b² = c²

Dunno the state of math in schools today, but I learned this in elementary school.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Certainly I could have presented the point in a better way, but when the general form of it was met with such resistance, I don't think there is much use in that.

For me, one of the primary uses of engaging in a discussion/debate/argument is to help me phrase my points more effectively.

the future scientists will need to be better than the ones of today

They automatically will be--by virtue of standing on the shoulders of those earlier giants.

to me it seems you are left with a clear risk of regression if things stay as they are.

Why would anything regress? We have the tech we have. Enough people in our society exist to have created it; they understand it and can keep it functional. You just mean progress-less-swiftly, I think. But in that case, so what?

Oh, and I want to add one thing to my earlier comment about valuing you: precisely what I value in you, Kyr, is that you're one of the posters with whom I can mix it up on occasion.

And then I want to add this, as well, based on Bird's post: we clearly need at least a three-fold division of society: inventors, users . . . and those who inspire the inventors

 

[Kyriakos]

For me, one of the primary uses of engaging in a discussion/debate/argument is to help me phrase my points more effectively.

They automatically will be--by virtue of standing on the shoulders of those earlier giants.

Why would anything regress? We have the tech we have. Enough people in our society exist to have created it; they understand it and can keep it functional. You just mean progress-less-swiftly, I think. But in that case, so what?

Oh, and I want to add one thing to my earlier comment about valuing you: precisely what I value in you, Kyr, is that you're one of the posters with whom I can mix it up on occasion.

And then I want to add this, as well, based on Bird's post: we clearly need at least a three-fold division of society: inventors, users . . . and those who inspire the inventors

By regression, it would first have to be regression of pace. But it may then devolve to actual regression (ala anglo-saxons living in huts with roman ruins next to them) ^^

As for if that is so terrible, well, depends. If by then we have enough tech to live well (unlike now, with so many unfixable problems), it won't be that bad, no. But might devolve more.