Originally Posted by
Singu
If you think that people are problem-creators and not problem-solvers, then yes. Fortunately people are problem-solvers.
This could only be true assuming more people with the necessary intelligence to contend with civilizational problems of ever increasing complexity. Which will not be the case for us on this present trajectory, as Meisenberg explains:
IQ has nothing to do with creativity. It has to do with the right culture.
On the contrary, this is easy to ascertain: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183/
"For the most advanced indicator of creativity, namely creative achievement, intelligence remains relevant even at the highest ability range."
Uh... the whole point was that Malthus was wrong.
Malthus was not wrong (only deferred). This is a conceit of pollyannas living in the afterglow of the Industrial Revolution.
Population growth will be offset by innovation and creativity, in this case innovation of food production and agriculture.
Again, there are realistic limits to growth. And at a normative level, one should question whether continued population growth is desirable. Especially when depopulation would solve a bevy of contemporary problems…
However what I'm talking about is sustaining the current population, not necessarily population growth. With the declining population, younger generations will have to take the burden of taking care of the aging population, and there's simply going to be not enough young people and the whole system is going to collapse.
There are three other options out of this quandary:
–Automation continues to augment labor productivity such that fewer workers are required
–Advances in longevity medicine to expand functional lifespan and keep older people working
–Euthanize old folks
Reply With Quote