A new WSJ report alleges Musk is attempting to quietly build a “legion” of offspring, using his platform on X to approach influencers to have his children.
Still
one billion in 1804
two billion in 1927
three billion in 1960
four billion in 1974
five billion in 1987
six billion in 1999
seven billion in 2011
eight billion in 2022
Already too many for my taste.
And no to all, don’t react with irrelevant “there’s enough food for…” or Malthusian bla bla
And no to all, don’t react with irrelevant “there’s enough food for…” or Malthusian bla bla
So, don’t bother you with the downside of what’s actually going to happen? What’s in the middle of happening? You’re just going to do a little cherry-picking, then tell us don’t bother you with facts?
You can already see it in real time by looking at the demographics in South Korea and Japan. The only reason the numbers are offset is that a few countries are still net positive enough to offset them.
Our great-grandkids are in for one hell of a ride. If we let it drop enough, they’ll be in forced breeding situations.
If you can get even low quality robots that can provide some amount of elder care, even if it’s just reminding them to take prescriptions and helping them walk, then you can drastically reduce the economic problems. there will be massive shortages of basic CNA and nursing home care workers.
Caring for the elderly is unfortunately a very small piece of the pie. A small number of CNA can handle a pretty decent number of elderly, in a facility.
Of course, we (corporate) stretch those CNA as thin as possible.
Automation in every industry that we’re so worried about being our undoing will soften the blow.
It’s possible that nanny bots could eventually help ease daycare costs.
Problematically anytime somebody creates something that reduces financial cost for someone else, They usually end up charging them significant amounts for it. Those inexpensive elderly care robots will end up being subscriptions and have planned obsolescence. Everybody’s got to get a piece of that pie.
Do you have numbers for that? Because staffing is already very short and the ratio of workers to people needing care will get much higher. And a lot of them will want to stay in their home, which needs a much higher amount of care than in a centralized facility.
Depends on what you’re looking for capability-wise.
DME pill dispenser that notifies family if they’re not taking the glass off the platform is a couple of grand and available now. It’s like $100 worth of parts. Of course, you can have it for less upfront by paying a perpetual subscription fee.
But helping them walk, Helping them get up, even if steps aren’t involved, that’s a way higher price tag, we’re looking at something Atlas or ASIMO class, you’re looking at 1-2 million for the hardware and basic functionality. Tacking on insurance because they will be sued when someone slips and a decade or so of r&d in hospice and homecare. I don’t think we’re likely to see anything affordable in 1-2 generations.
Japan is leading the charge in looking at this because it’s being hit hard by population decline. This will be in their face shortly. They have bots that can drive around and talk to people and can report on people in distress. Those are more car-priced. They’re not going to help anyone walk, but they can provide companionship, which isn’t nothing.
With lifespans advancing and birthrates dropping, you can be sure that they’ll be moving as fast as they can. Even if the hardware becomes affordable, they’ll charge as much as the market will bear. Look at the price for senior care. They own the building, and they’re understaffing the facilities as much as possible. Slumlording as a service.
Studies have been wrong before.
Some things are foreseable, “the future” is a combination of plenty variables and impossible to predict.
The single subject of population isn’t even simple.
Little anecdote: I found an old school book, you know based on studies, and it had predictions for 15 years.
They were off by a billion.
Whatever it is, I’m not going to be a nihilist or fatalist for reasons and issues I have zero control over.
I am living now and do the best with what I got.
And people who just don’t like what most studies say and try to use that as an argument are overwhelmingly in the wrong. Perhaps you’re not, but I don’t like your chances.
I found an old school book, you know based on studies, and it had predictions for 15 years.
They were off by a billion.
source please, sounds like good reading.
Whatever it is, I’m not going to be a nihilist or fatalist for reasons and issues I have zero control over.
I am living now and do the best with what I got.
Settling for what you have because what’s coming is inconvenient is likely a core mechanism of the Fermi Paradox.
I don’t own that book and obviously wouldn’t since it’s outdated and wrong.
AFAIK most of the sources were UN or related.
And I think you make a lot of assumptions about me.
“just don’t like what most studies say” is wrong.
It doesn’t influence my thinking. They may be true or not, I will deal with them pragmatically since they are out of my control.
It is you who believes “what’s coming is inconvenient”. Catastrophic even.
What do you think you can or should do about the impending apocalypse?
Cities aren’t generally overcrowded because they have no other choice, they’re overcrowded because cities typically offer the best opportunities. If the population were to drop three quarters overnight, people would flock to cities.
Land use is also about want, not need. We don’t have to do it to sustain our population and its growth, it’s just the cheapest (re: most profitable) option.
Still one billion in 1804
two billion in 1927
three billion in 1960
four billion in 1974
five billion in 1987
six billion in 1999
seven billion in 2011
eight billion in 2022
Already too many for my taste.
And no to all, don’t react with irrelevant “there’s enough food for…” or Malthusian bla bla
So, don’t bother you with the downside of what’s actually going to happen? What’s in the middle of happening? You’re just going to do a little cherry-picking, then tell us don’t bother you with facts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBudghsdByQ
You can already see it in real time by looking at the demographics in South Korea and Japan. The only reason the numbers are offset is that a few countries are still net positive enough to offset them.
Our great-grandkids are in for one hell of a ride. If we let it drop enough, they’ll be in forced breeding situations.
A world with a lot less people sounds like a dream TBH.
No overcrowded cities, no chasing animals of their land or destroying it for resources, etc…
your great grandkids living in total economic collapse. peachy
Infinite growth was never gonna last forever.
Carefully planned level sustainability wasn’t off the table. No one even tried.
Applying pressure to the middle class just topples the cards
That’s a capitalism problem, not a demographic one.
Then why are communist countries also seeing the same problem?
Because they’re not communist. At best they’re state capitalism, at worst they’re dictatorships, which is just capitalism with less steps.
If you can get even low quality robots that can provide some amount of elder care, even if it’s just reminding them to take prescriptions and helping them walk, then you can drastically reduce the economic problems. there will be massive shortages of basic CNA and nursing home care workers.
Caring for the elderly is unfortunately a very small piece of the pie. A small number of CNA can handle a pretty decent number of elderly, in a facility.
Of course, we (corporate) stretch those CNA as thin as possible.
Automation in every industry that we’re so worried about being our undoing will soften the blow.
It’s possible that nanny bots could eventually help ease daycare costs.
Problematically anytime somebody creates something that reduces financial cost for someone else, They usually end up charging them significant amounts for it. Those inexpensive elderly care robots will end up being subscriptions and have planned obsolescence. Everybody’s got to get a piece of that pie.
Do you have numbers for that? Because staffing is already very short and the ratio of workers to people needing care will get much higher. And a lot of them will want to stay in their home, which needs a much higher amount of care than in a centralized facility.
Sure!
Depends on what you’re looking for capability-wise.
DME pill dispenser that notifies family if they’re not taking the glass off the platform is a couple of grand and available now. It’s like $100 worth of parts. Of course, you can have it for less upfront by paying a perpetual subscription fee.
But helping them walk, Helping them get up, even if steps aren’t involved, that’s a way higher price tag, we’re looking at something Atlas or ASIMO class, you’re looking at 1-2 million for the hardware and basic functionality. Tacking on insurance because they will be sued when someone slips and a decade or so of r&d in hospice and homecare. I don’t think we’re likely to see anything affordable in 1-2 generations.
Japan is leading the charge in looking at this because it’s being hit hard by population decline. This will be in their face shortly. They have bots that can drive around and talk to people and can report on people in distress. Those are more car-priced. They’re not going to help anyone walk, but they can provide companionship, which isn’t nothing.
With lifespans advancing and birthrates dropping, you can be sure that they’ll be moving as fast as they can. Even if the hardware becomes affordable, they’ll charge as much as the market will bear. Look at the price for senior care. They own the building, and they’re understaffing the facilities as much as possible. Slumlording as a service.
You sure have a sunny outlook.
And it’s really going great now with all those people and their economies
My outlook is based on studies, and this crap is studied a lot. and also on readily observable evidence.
It’s dire, and it’s not based on my opinion.
Studies have been wrong before.
Some things are foreseable, “the future” is a combination of plenty variables and impossible to predict.
The single subject of population isn’t even simple.
Little anecdote: I found an old school book, you know based on studies, and it had predictions for 15 years.
They were off by a billion.
Whatever it is, I’m not going to be a nihilist or fatalist for reasons and issues I have zero control over.
I am living now and do the best with what I got.
And people who just don’t like what most studies say and try to use that as an argument are overwhelmingly in the wrong. Perhaps you’re not, but I don’t like your chances.
source please, sounds like good reading.
Settling for what you have because what’s coming is inconvenient is likely a core mechanism of the Fermi Paradox.
I don’t own that book and obviously wouldn’t since it’s outdated and wrong.
AFAIK most of the sources were UN or related.
And I think you make a lot of assumptions about me.
“just don’t like what most studies say” is wrong.
It doesn’t influence my thinking. They may be true or not, I will deal with them pragmatically since they are out of my control.
It is you who believes “what’s coming is inconvenient”. Catastrophic even.
What do you think you can or should do about the impending apocalypse?
The only reason to believe it would be better with less people is delusional fantasy.
The problem isn’t population, it’s policy.
that’s just your oopinion
Are you dense?
Removed by mod
You just said you would murder me…so, yes?
Removed by mod
Cities aren’t generally overcrowded because they have no other choice, they’re overcrowded because cities typically offer the best opportunities. If the population were to drop three quarters overnight, people would flock to cities.
Land use is also about want, not need. We don’t have to do it to sustain our population and its growth, it’s just the cheapest (re: most profitable) option.