Overpopulation.

Note the distinction between GDP and GDP per capita. As an economic objective, raising the GDP per capita to it's highest is good, whereas raising the GDP to it's highest may lead to a very low GDP per capita and sufferring. In some cases raising GDP to high levels is needed to complete a civilised task which will help the trillions of people who will exist in the future. Consider this.

People are needed to develop resources and add value to them. However resources are limited and there is only so much that technology can do to increase the output of a resource. This means that there is a certain population size at which the gdp per capita is at it's highest and where further population would cause further strain on resources and people would have to make do with less. At that same point if the population would decrease there would not be enough people to efficiently use those resources, the value of goods and services would decrease, people would pay less and people would earn less.

I will call this population size the peak. Bear in mind that this is a general trend and while there are of course 100s of other important factors, this is a factor also. To a certain degree of accuracy we can predict which range of population the theoretical peak would lie in and thus the population size in which we can be assured people will enjoy a high standard of living. I will call this range the peak range.

Since climates changes, accidents happen, crimes occur, wars start and deposits run dry whilst populations tend to stay stable, it is better to prepare for over-population by keeping populations low in this peak range. This means that resources may not be used to their full efficiency, but when disasters happen it will not cast the economy into turmoil. An insurance policy.


I know some marxists will go crazy when I say this, but the malthusian catastrophe has already occurred in stagnant isolated economies who let their population grow to fit their economy. Of course in most cases this stagnancy s due more to despotism than circumstance, but for 100s of years before the industrial revolution economies have been stagnant due to circumstance aswell as despotism...

Technological growth can be slowed or halted by it reaching a level where we can no longer further advance it, by disasters, crippling wars and by depletion of the resources needed for the technology to function. When this happens the total possible size of the economy will stop growing and population may eventually reach the peak range I was talking about, it may already be in that range. At this point in order to preserve a high gdp per capita population control will need to take place to prevent overpopulation or underpopulation. Before you get paranoid and call me hitler, this can all be done with birth control and family planning.

>>1
Correct.

You're forgetting about the law of accelerating returns, especially as it relates to nanotechnology.  When (not if), assembler type nanomachines become advanced enough we will never run out of resources.
You also have to consider the future developments in robotics.  People's worth won't have anything to do with what they can do for resources because robots will do just about everything.

(in before, "that's just science-fiction!")

>>3
From what has been hitherto seen all technology needs a limited resource of some sorts. If physical requirements are completely fulfilled then the economy will grow until it is restricted by intellectual labour or time. You also forget that demand is practically infinite and people always find a way to consume more resources.

However long it takea, eventually population will catch up with technology again. We may already be past our peak range in terms of global population.

>>1
THANK YOU,
I was the guy suggesting lowering the population in the "win" thread

ban immigration

>>1
"When this happens the total possible size of the economy will stop growing and population may eventually reach the peak range I was talking about, it may already be in that range."
This would be true if the world were fully developed economically, which it is not. I'm afraid there is no way of telling at this point in time what you claim.

>>7
It is unreasonable to assume reosurces are unlimited, therefore it is unreasonable to assume economies are capable of perpetual growth for eternity. Unless wars and disasters keep on preventing the economy from reaching the peak range, the economy will grow into and beyond the peak range causing overpopulation.

>>8

Energy from the sun is effectively unlimited for the time being. We can use this to reshape things.

Suppose all the metal in the world is arranged into a large brick. Technology level: 0

Suppose we turn that metal into spears. We are now more advanced. Technology level: 1

Suppose we then develop guns. We melt down our spears and create guns. No additional resources have been consumed. Technology level: 2

Suppose we then develop nukes. We melt down our guns and build nukes. No additional consumption. Technology level: 3

Fucking amazing. Technology can grow because we can re-use resources!

Suppose in 500 years we melt down our nukes and build a means of inexpensive transporation into space.

Asteroids full of iron? No fucking way! Comets made of ice? Free water! Cosmic radiation? Free energy! Mars's atmosphere is CO2? Let's store it and feed it to plants and turn it into O2 and food.

Once we do that, resources are effectively unlimited. At least, they are far greater in supply than we have any way of doing anything with.

Resources are unlimited. We simply can't access all of it yet.

>>9
It requires an enormous amount of energy and resources to produce giant space solar panels, or mining in space which are both risky and may be destroyed before they give any returns beyond the expense needed to produce them. During the time needed to develop and implement these technologies population growth may well exceed the peak range and cause overpopulation.

While it is possible that the "effectively" unlimited extra-terrestrial resources will be accessed, it is highly unlikely this will occur before overpopulation occurs unless measures are taken to prevent overpopulation.

You may have not understood the nature of resources. Resources are not just physical materials and energy.. Time, the environment, space and labour are also important factors. Even morale, education and culture are resources that can be expended and have to be economised and managed.

Consider computers. Practically we have unlimited resources to add to a computer, the problem is no matter how large the computer it doesn't increase it's effectiveness. The size of microprocessors must be decreased so calculations take less time. All of a sudden space becomes a resource and miniaturization becomes more important than the colossal supply of minerals.

>>10

I wasn't saying overpopulation wasn't a problem. Just that limited resources isn't a limiting factor to economic grown because technological development allows us to use our resources more efficiently, so that the same number of people can produce more with less input resources.

well that does not change the fact that resources are finite, and eventually shit will run out.

i think all you guys need to get laid. Tonight.

>>11
Valid point then. Technology does influence the demand for resources. Likewise resource scarcity influences the demand for technology since necessity is the mother of invention.

>>12
This will probably be the condition of things.

>>13
gb2 /d/

>>8
 7 here. I was speaking in a present day context. You suspect that the world may already be too populated, but in fact most parts of the world aren't developed or are developing. The idea that if and when technology advance fails to keep up with economic advance just isn't applicable to any real world situation yet.

>>15
Most country's economic growth exceeds their population growth, so we are seeing a general increase in GDP per capita. Though this may not be the best policy if your objective is to stay within the peak range.

India's population has increased by 100 million since they hit the 1 billion mark in 2000. It was already denser than europe.

"Since climates changes, accidents happen, crimes occur, wars start and deposits run dry whilst populations tend to stay stable, it is better to prepare for over-population by keeping populations low in this peak range. This means that resources may not be used to their full efficiency, but when disasters happen it will not cast the economy into turmoil. An insurance policy."

If you take these 2 points into account you can see that even though GDP per capita is increasing it may not be the best option to permit further population growth. GDP per capita will still increase and is likely to do so at a higher rate if populations remain level.

If India was at a 1st world level of development, compared to other 1st world nations I would say that it had past it's peak range already. Even though it possesses extensive heavy industry it still has a lower human development index than every nation in South America which has a much more lower density.

I like this Doctor Science guy, he sounds like a genius. He tackles controversial issues but I think he addresses all concerns and comes up with solutions that would accomplish what they set out to and not cause any serious problems.

What do you think?

>>17
What do you think?
He last posted in 2007. Your idol is either dead or simply fucked offed.