Bill Gates asks," does saving more lives lead to overpopulation?"

We need to move some people off the planet And on to new planets

 

The age of the Earth has been calculated at about 4.5 billion years. The age of the Universe, significantly more (14 billion or so). In order for things to age, time must exist. QED.

 

U just got it off a book like a priest or sumthin mang. Prove it while I'm off staining my carpets.

 

The right's bizarre targeting of Bill Gates is an odd thing.

I mean there are real reasons that open Gates up to criticism and also real reasons to celebrate Bill Gates.

So why incorrectly and falsely label him with things he hasn't ever advocated or suggested?

 

Do endless operating system updates lead to permanently losing Bluetooth drivers?

 

Bill Burr has a better solution. Cruise ships

 

I get the biggest kick out of the people who are paranoid enough to think Bill Gates is micro chipping people are the same people who are avid users of Facebook. If given the option (for privacy reasons) of micro chip or Facebook I would probably go with the chip. There is nothing more invasive to your privacy than that garbage collector of an App.

 

GlenRice might have a challenger for biggest idiot.

 

Xbox >

 

https://www.overcomingbias.com/2021/09/the-insular-fertile-future.html

The Insular Fertile Future
By Robin Hanson · September 11, 2021 12:50 pm

Fertility (= kids per adult) has been falling worldwide for centuries. It seems to be correlated strongly with societal (not individual) wealth, and mediated by norms transmitted via mass media. World elite culture supports falling fertility by celebrating professional more than parenting accomplishment. Among many rich world elites, fertility has fallen below replacement level, and is still falling further. More others should join them as the world gets richer and more culturally integrated.

With seven billion humans today, if the population were to fall in half every two generations it would take roughly 1600 years for humanity to go extinct. So the risk isn’t immediate, and lots of things might change before then. (E.g., see my book Age of Em.) But as this trend has been consistent for centuries, it’s hardly crazy to think that it may continue for many more centuries.

Yes, extinction isn’t that likely, as a more likely scenario has selection stepping in to promote higher fertility. However, on reflection I think it also makes sense to worry about that better scenario, as the most likely way for selection to promote fertility is by promoting insular subcultures, especially re gender/mating/fertility. Let me explain.

Today the cultures associated with higher fertility tend to be more “traditional”, and less integrated with the dominant world elite culture. And a few small subcultures, like Mennonites and Amish, or Mormons and Orthodox Jews, even manage to maintain high fertility while staying closely connected to the dominant culture. However, as a big fraction of the youth of such subcultures leave them, it isn’t obvious that these subcultures can long sustain net growth.

But this does point to the plausibly winning strategy: subcultures that are both highly fertile and highly insular, keeping enough youth from wanting to defect from their subculture to join the dominant low fertility culture. Through some combination of genes, culture, and tech, they find a way isolate their members more from outside cultural influence, and thereby to support sustained population growth (or at least less rapid decline).

That scenario is a win relative to human extinction, but it should worry those who see much value embodied in the dominant culture, and much harm that could come from more cultural isolation, or from the religions or ideologies that might be used to sustain such insularity. For example, as traditional cultures are the main source today of insular fertile cultures, they seem likely to also be the main source of such winning subcultures in a few centuries. Maybe we’ll get a traditional culture who happens to take a lot from the dominant culture. But also maybe not.

What other options do we have? We could hope that genetic evolution will turn out to be faster than we fear, that global culture will change its mind and switch to promoting fertility, or that cheap nurturing robot parents will appear. But these seem faint hopes. The dominant culture may well seek to repress divergent insular fertile subcultures, but that would raise the risk of human extinction.

One possible fix that comes to mind here is for the dominant culture to tolerate and even encourage mating and gender variance among new cultural descendants of that dominant culture. That is, encourage the creation of new subcultures that inherit most of their cultural elements from the dominant culture, but that explore different approaches to mating, gender , and parenting within each subculture. Swigging, polyamory, and home schooling subcultures of today show that such cultural descendants are at least possible. Hopefully such subcultures would mainly be more culturally insular only regarding their mating, gender, and parenting aspects.

With enough such experiments, we might find new subcultures that promote much higher fertility, and yet which also inherit many aspects of dominant culture. And these might have a fighting chance against insular subcultures descended from more traditional cultures. Alas, this fix requires that the dominant culture become much more tolerant of local variations in gender, mating, and parenting, which may not be much more likely than their just coming to see the wisdom of promoting fertility. After all we are currently in an increasingly Puritan era of more not less conformity on such things.

I’m afraid I really don’t see a good solution here yet. But I at least want to flag the problem for consideration.

​

 

So women who aspire to have an education and do something with their lives outside of pumping babies is elite now huh.

 

@rocketsjudoka

nature = population control

 

The global population is projected to peak at around 10.4 billion in 2086

https://ourworldindata.org/world-po...jected-to-peak-at-around-10-4-billion-in-2086

If I live until 90 I just might experience peak human

 

This guy juggles several different premises and ostensibly frames them as absolutes.

"Human extinction" isn't the appropriate term if there are cultures that are off the grid and doing their own thing by being net positive in fertility.

Humanity will likely live on from a zombie apocalypse or two. Won't be pretty, but it's more than likely that we were the reason why we couldn't have nice things.

His other theme of "global culture" is more appropriate as a perception of human civilization. The current model is unsustainable and out of wack. We pump chemicals, plastics, compounds that mimic/block growth hormones, and other pollutants into our air and water for short term needs of scale, then wonder why we're all shooting more and more blanks per year.

The other half he tackles, our cultures of child bearing and enhancing fertility, sometimes sounds like a farmer domesticating traits out a seed strain. Whether right or wrong, governments still have the power to promote policies that encourage more than one children. His thoughts can spiral even more dangerously at a level above governments.

Is it really smart to heavily consider the thoughts of a dude who plotted a simplistic chart that said Humanity Doomed in 1600 years? Civilization would likely collapse way before then, but if it's the status quo we're dealing with that lead the variables to linearly regress to that point, maybe that's not a bad thing?

 

We're going to hit that number well before 2086 at the rate were going.

Historically, the best way to lower fertility is to improve womens access to the job market, girls acceess to education, access to contraception, and to lower infant morality.

Were backsliding on the first two in the developing world and are about to take a big step back in the second too for the US.

 

In my 1980's Texas middle school we learned that as medicine (and things like vaccinations) improves in poorer countries the overall population tends to actually decrease over time.

Evedently the right-wing Bill Gates conspiracists didn't make it through middle school - because they believed he put something in vaccines to kill people and that's why he wants to vaccinate people for population control.

 

90? Rookie.

I'm shooting for 129.

 

Yup. Culture and obviously things like living in a rural area have an impact...but when infant mortality is high, maternal mortality is high, and there's a good chance that one third of your kids are going to die...you're motivated to have a lot. That's especially true in societies without a social safety net where your children are expected to take care of you and maintain land that may have been in your family for hundreds of years.

Also a reason why people tend to take younger and/or multiple wives. If there's a chance your wife is going to die at child birth and you need to have a large family for the above reasons, well you're going to have more wives and there's going to be less emphasis on women's rights and education. I believe there's also scholarship that suggests that polygamy is a good predictor for violence and state instability. Much for the same reasons we have violent incels in the West, except on a much larger scale where men who aren't born into wealth cannot get married, have sex, and ergo are not seen as real men.

 

I wonder if I have enough marbles in the brain to run in realtime when I'm 90. Probably have to download myself in VR and tune the system time....

 

Watching my elderly relatives decline has been tough. I hope wherever I live when Im old they still offer those free college classes for seniors. Lose it or use it applies to the brain as well.