You must log in or register to comment.

SpecialMembership t1_j8vusxy wrote

lower population and more resources do not guarantee greater freedom and progress. Russia has a capable population and the most abundant natural resources per capita of all the countries on earth but it's a dictatorial country where people struggle for survival.

so no.


Ivan_The_8th t1_j8wr9ei wrote

People don't "struggle for survival", it's not 90s anymore. Still very inefficient tho, no denying that.


PhilosophusFuturum t1_j8vv2i5 wrote

Absolutely not. The size of a population is somewhat like the amount of parameters for an AI model. The more parameters a model is trained on, the better it is. Likewise, the more people there are, the more brainpower a civilization has to advance faster. That’s the number 1 thing separating massive European cultures and random African tribal-cultures.

Right now, progress is absolutely driven by thinkers and innovators. The more of these people there are, the more progress there is. Even if we wiped out everyone who was not an innovator; there still needs to be people who give goods and perform services for innovators. And if these people are wiped out then the innovators will focus more on providing for themselves and less time innovating.


Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_j8vxt3p wrote

No, the productive capacity of humanity would collapse and people would not have access to more resources. I guess an exception is houses and cars because they already exist. But they eventually wear down without human upkeep. I hope you see how your train of thought is extremely dangerous and scary. It’s not good to advocate mass murder.


turnip_burrito t1_j8vtfqs wrote

Our economy would go to shit and we'd be less productive as a society.

Science would progress much more slowly.

We'd burn less oil. That's a plus I guess.


Spire_Citron t1_j8w3c75 wrote

Who would invent those technologies if most of the population had vanished? Who would process those resources into the things that people use?


Fol1234 t1_j8w4nh3 wrote

more people -> more scientists -> more innovations


GlobusGlobus t1_j8w8k6m wrote


We need more people. Next stop 100B.


BenjaminHamnett t1_j8wczvh wrote

What’s the point? Would you play Russian roulette with 49 others of equal wealth? Winner gets everyone else’s stuff! Nothing is stopping people from arranging this now


sibylazure t1_j8wglrk wrote

Big economy / more engineers and scientists is the basic requirement of progress in technology.

Developed countries and regional or world superpowers like Germany, US, China, Japan, India, South Korea, France etc are the one who's in charge of the rapid progress.

Even low-developed countries or failed states which failed to have a decent amount of good scientists or engineers still contribute to the progress of humanity by actively participating in the world economy.


m1cr05t4t3 t1_j8wsjup wrote

Maybe after we develop enough AI and robots to replace the billions of humans worth of labor that is done everyday.. Otherwise in a few months you'll be figuring out what you take for granted real fast. Anyone who has tried to repair a rusty car will understand that without fresh parts life is not going to be easy. Problem is we live in a world where nothing lasts forever so the idea of just surviving on what's left behind is not really sustainable in the way most people think. You would probably spend most of your days just breaking down materials.


just-a-dreamer- t1_j8w7wnm wrote

98% is a bit much, but yes.

The less humans, the better. Maynard Keynes one stated around 1950 that in the future people only have to work like 10 hours.

He didn't account for the world population to increase 3.5X in 70 years. Which is the core of all our problems.


Akimbo333 t1_j8vsrpn wrote

It's possible