[FoRK] Re: [wta-talk] Re:Survey on the direction of Transhumanism
(fwd from firstname.lastname@example.org)
eugen at leitl.org
Fri Aug 6 02:23:41 PDT 2004
----- Forwarded message from Brian Hurt <bhurt at spnz.org> -----
From: Brian Hurt <bhurt at spnz.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:05:36 -0500 (CDT)
To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>
Subject: Re: [wta-talk] Re:Survey on the direction of Transhumanism
Reply-To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List <wta-talk at transhumanism.org>
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Erik Aronesty wrote:
> : Technological advances are going
> : to make all of us extremel
> : y wealthy sooner or later (or
> : extremely dead, one way. or the
> : other). Which will make us all
> : miserable. Worse yet, life
> Everyone *cannot possibly* be extremely wealthy on a population
By some measures we already are. A while back I heard an interesting news
item on NPR. They had a problem with the program to give free TB
treatments to the homeless population of NYC- many of the people weren't
staying put through the entire treatment, and there were worried that the
partial treatments might allow an antibiotic resistant TB to develop. But
consider something- if you're a homeless wino, you have something that
even kings and presidents didn't have 100 years ago- a cure for TB.
But let's step back a minute, and ask a more interesting question- are we
inexorably on an exponential growth curve for population? A couple of
years back, I made an interesting graph. I took the CIA world fact book
for (IIRC) 2001, and for each country I took two statistics: the GDP per
capita in US dollars as a measure of wealth, and the births per 1000 pop
minus the deaths per 1000 pop as a measure of population growth. I used
births minus deaths as a measure of pop growth to discount the effects of
I then ploted the two in a scatter graph against each other, and this is
what I got:
The data point in the upper right hand corner was added by gnu plot, it
doesn't exist in the data (I checked).
Now, I'd be cautious before making too much soup from this one oyster.
Among other problems the graph has is that it doesn't factor out income
disparity- most of the outliers from the main curve are oil producing
countries- which have a small number of individuals making huge amounts of
money (pulling up the GDP per capitia for the whole country) and large
numbers of poor people (who pull up the population growth for the whole
country). But one thing I think is clear from the graph is that the
higher the average income reduces the average population growth.
Note that religion and culture have little to do with where you are on the
graph. As an ex-catholic, the Catholic religion encourages population
growth (no abortion, no birth control). But very Catholic countries like
Ireland and Italy are not noticably different from non-Catholic countries
like Sweden or Japan.
This makes sense, if you think about it. In sustenance farming families,
children are an economic advantage. By age of 5-6 they can start
contributing the productivity of the farm, by age 10 they're almost worth
another full adult. And in old age, your children are your social
security. In industrial, and especially in info-technical, societies,
children require years to decades of education before they can even start
contributing to the welfare of their families- most children are 15-16
years old before they get their first jobs. And either you youself, or
society at large, provides for your old age. Children are a net economic
drain on the parents. There are still reasons to have children- but no
reason to have 12 children instead of stopping at just two or three.
If we can get rich enough, we could conceivably drop the population growth
rate to zero, or close enough, allowing us to preserve the wealth.
The UN agress with my analysis, predicting population will top out at
about 10B around the mid part of this century, and then stabilizing or
even retreating a little bit:
This is good news if, like me, you define happiness as "not starving to
death". This is not good news if, like you, you define happiness as
"having a large family".
> My data was taken from a scientific article in (sciam or new scientist).
> With some effort, I'd probably be able to find the source. If anyone
> cares enough, I'll research it.
> Ever see the research done on lottery winners? Miserable... the whole
> lot of them.
We're doomed! Doomed, I say!
Here's the problem: we're committed. We have two choices: "heaven" on
earth (limited to no dying, no disease, no poverty, no starvation), or
true hell on earth. As in, five out of six people dying, or more. Mass
famine, disease, poverty, dying. There are simply too many people to go
back to the rustic "golden" era of agrarian society of poor and simply but
happy farmer folk- and, speaking as someone who grew up in farm country,
this is just so much romantic cow fertilizer. Our current situation in
untenable- we either have to get a lot richer, or we'll get a lot poorer.
The problem I have with your argument- that wealth equals unhappiness- is
that I know how wealthy I already am. I'm wealthier than the vast
majority of people on this planet. And it doesn't suck. No matter how
much you argue it does, it doesn't. Which is why I'm looking forward to
being wealthier yet. I would mind taking a swing at being a lotto winner,
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford
wta-talk mailing list
wta-talk at transhumanism.org
----- End forwarded message -----
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/attachments/20040806/741f5e3d/attachment.pgp
More information about the FoRK