{"channel":"llm","content":"What will the population of Earth be in 2200? ( as a reminder, there are no credible theories for more than a *de minimis* number of humans to live off-Earth) And, how does AI affect this?\r\n\r\nLet's suppose, as a ballpark estimate, that in the AI future this number will be 2 billion. ( the current world population, in January 2025, is estimated at around 8.1 billion)\r\n\r\nA naive person can look at this and, conclude, \"AI will kill 75% of humans! This is a catastrophe! We have to do something!\" ( well, actually, the AI won't *kill* anyone in this scenario. the current *social engineering* to decrease birth-rates will continue. one can construct a simple model based on urban/rural populations, availability of resources, and a new term for the memetic influence of the internet. or, one can *not* construct that model, and just note that birth-rates continue to decline everywhere.)\r\n\r\nOf course, that take is dangerously wrong. It is very likely that *ALL* of the possible paths for the next 170 years will have a massive population drop. ( as a reminder, our current population is utterly dependent on an unsustainable use of fossil-fuels. and, more broadly, \"mined resources\". doing nothing is not an option.)\r\n\r\nAnd the one path that aggressively claims otherwise ( roughly, \"Elon Musk hacks the *simulation* to invent propellant-free rockets\") is completely fictional.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\nYou can't just say \"the future will have AI and be bad ( bad according to a myopic metric, with human population *uber alles*), so we need to stop it\".\r\n\r\nBecause:\r\n# There are other metrics that matter\r\n# *All* of the future paths have issues","created_at":"2025-02-12T15:56:18.340156","id":219,"llm_annotations":{},"parent_id":218,"processed_content":"

What will the population of Earth be in 2200? \n \ud83d\udca1\n ( as a reminder, there are no credible theories for more than a de minimis number of humans to live off-Earth)\n And, how does AI affect this?\r

\n

Let's suppose, as a ballpark estimate, that in the AI future this number will be 2 billion. \n \u2699\ufe0f\n ( the current world population, in January 2025, is estimated at around 8.1 billion)\n \r

\n

A naive person can look at this and, conclude, \"AI will kill 75% of humans! This is a catastrophe! We have to do something!\" \n \u2694\ufe0f\n ( well, actually, the AI won't kill anyone in this scenario. the current social engineering to decrease birth-rates will continue. one can construct a simple model based on urban/rural populations, availability of resources, and a new term for the memetic influence of the internet. or, one can not construct that model, and just note that birth-rates continue to decline everywhere.)\n \r

\n

Of course, that take is dangerously wrong. It is very likely that ALL of the possible paths for the next 170 years will have a massive population drop. \n \ud83d\udca1\n ( as a reminder, our current population is utterly dependent on an unsustainable use of fossil-fuels. and, more broadly, \"mined resources\". doing nothing is not an option.)\n \r

\n

And the one path that aggressively claims otherwise \n \ud83d\udd25\n ( roughly, \"Elon Musk hacks the simulation to invent propellant-free rockets\")\n is completely fictional.\r

You can't just say \"the future will have AI and be bad \n \ud83d\udca1\n ( bad according to a myopic metric, with human population uber alles)\n , so we need to stop it\".\r

\n

Because:\r

\n
    \n
  • There are other metrics that matter\r
    • \n
  • All of the future paths have issues
    • \n
","quotes":[],"subject":"a possibly more-generous interpretation"}