Why the "population bomb" never blew up; why depopulation can't even remotely help with climate change; and why it's good to have more "people, people, people!"
Great piece Daniel. I don't think that was quite what I was asking, but it isn't that far off. I do think its odd for Dean to compare low birth rates as a consequences of better lives with climate change as a consequence of better lives. The kind of things that seem to lead to low birth rates is giving people minimally decent lives, for which there are no choiceworthy alternatives (low infant mortality, reproductive choice, women's education). The kind of things driving climate change are not such things, and there are many alternatives to burning through all the fossil fuels (vegetarianism, large expenditures on renewable and nuclear energy, etc.).
Yes, though it’s possible that having a low population will be even *more* of a bummer in a world of great AI. If a person can use AI to do amazing research, then having fewer people means *way* less useful research!
Yes to that: If AI and people are complements (like many other technologies have been complements to humans) then we lose more if we depopulate. And the case for people is not only about the supply side (chapter 6 in our book) other people matter on the demand side (chapter 7) and in the social welfare function (chapter 8), and robots might not be as good there.
Great piece Daniel. I don't think that was quite what I was asking, but it isn't that far off. I do think its odd for Dean to compare low birth rates as a consequences of better lives with climate change as a consequence of better lives. The kind of things that seem to lead to low birth rates is giving people minimally decent lives, for which there are no choiceworthy alternatives (low infant mortality, reproductive choice, women's education). The kind of things driving climate change are not such things, and there are many alternatives to burning through all the fossil fuels (vegetarianism, large expenditures on renewable and nuclear energy, etc.).
If population won't decline for several decades, won't we have really good robots and AI by then?
Yes, though it’s possible that having a low population will be even *more* of a bummer in a world of great AI. If a person can use AI to do amazing research, then having fewer people means *way* less useful research!
Yes to that: If AI and people are complements (like many other technologies have been complements to humans) then we lose more if we depopulate. And the case for people is not only about the supply side (chapter 6 in our book) other people matter on the demand side (chapter 7) and in the social welfare function (chapter 8), and robots might not be as good there.