Worried in economic terms though, because the foundation of that is an assumption of continuing growth?

I try to understand this worrying mindset but it still seems like short-term thinking. Essentially all of our problems are caused by excessive population - climate change is caused by energy usage which is too high because there are too many people. Wars, migration, resource depletion, hunger, water scarcity, all of it. So we (as in, human civilization) short-term think our way into rationalizing that it'll be ok because technology will provide a solution and we don't need to make any real changes.

Now the population trend looks like it's about to reverse and we can finally see a way to a possible future without scarcity, and we short-term think that into being a problem because we might find it difficult to afford to care for our elderly anymore. But we can! The economic engine will never be more powerful than it is now: so exploit it, use it to solve the pain of population contraction while we adjust our economic and productive structures so they can serve us effectively in a world where growth isn't purely consumptive.

I'm sure this is all hopelessly naive.

We have structured our global financial system around young people paying taxes to pay for the costs of the retired generations. Population decline is a real problem we will soon be facing head on.

The problem with a sudden collapse of birthrates in most of the industrialised world is the instability it will cause. A bunch of large countries have seen their birthrates drop from 3+ per female to <2 per female, in some cases as low as 0.9-1.2. At the same countries there are a bunch of countries, typically poorer countries in terms of GDP per capita, that still have fast growing populations. This causes a massive pressure for mass migrations from very different cultures, as well as strong generational imbalances. Ideally most of the world would gravitate towards stable 2.1 replacement rates, or not too far from it.

IMO 1.9 or even 1.7 wouldn't be something to worry too much about (many economists would disagree). But going even below there, and adjusting very fast is worrisome. It guarantees a socioeconomic shock.

Assuming zero other outside knowledge, this can be fine heuristic. But we do have ways of independently evaluating each risk on its merits.

Put another way, if you adopted this posture at the dawn of nuclear weapons you would be wrong to do so. Yes, you would be wrong to have done do even though we haven't had a nuclear exchange (yet). The risk is there. Arguing solely on the basis that it hasn't happened to date is like a gambler asserting he was 'right' when he bets the farm in Roulette and wins.

There are some caveats to the above but, unless you are prepared to assert no risk could be catastrophic, it is the correct posture.

That concern has merit though, because living cost has become a problem and middle class is responding by having less children, so while we are in peak population, the population is growing older, which is an indication of future population decline.

> peak global population and almost all industrialized nations are more worried about population decline than overpopulation these days

That is because these nations want those industrialised benefits remaining limited to populations of certain language, certain nationality, certain skin colour, certain ancestry, etc – i.e., ignoring few rare exceptions and nuances it can be just summed as a "certain race" – as uncouth as it sounds, or "not very civilised talk" like.

Worrying is necessary, just as important as making progress. The overpopulation worries made big progress in birth controls which is primary reason of this current population. If not for that, one can argue that we could have a different world right now. I personally think we are already downplaying climate risk by a lot and we shouldn't be downplaying the risk of AI as well.

Since when were concerns about superintelligence based on extrapolations from data? The addition of data is a newcomer to that concern. Most of its history it was criticized as pure theory.

We tend to overestimate the impact of technology advances in the short term but underestimate their impact on the long term.

Most likely, we'll simply go extinct as a species over time. Real life is much more boring than disaster movies.

However, everybody who disagreed with the prediction when it was made was quite extremely wrong for many years. Even when you know something has to eventually flatten, it can be difficult to foretell when.

Isn't that how climate change models work?

I’m not worried about data centers in space, i think they’re a foolish investment and further proof that people are high on AI promises.

"Which is why I'm not worried about..."

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Is there an opposite phrase for this? Where someone is never worried? Even though there are disasters all around him.

> I'm not worried about superintelligence or data centers in space.

null hypothesis extrapolation from past data

Wonder if we can convince the paperclip maximizer to raise its standards of living and get a graduate degree, thereby delaying the age at which it decides to make paperclips or discourage it altogether, all the while rising costs and social isolation make it unlikely to reach replacement levels

Let's not jump to conclusions yet. We are still on the 13th, doomsday might still come ;)

>>> or data centers in space.

I am about as worried about data centers in space as I am about jetpacks disrupting the flying car market.

But, as the authors point out, "the possibility of deriving some fun by extrapolating ... should not be overlooked" :)

Non sequitur. One problem may have merit while another does not.

> Which is why I'm not worried about superintelligence or data centers in space.

Perhaps you would also believe that a devastating financial crash is better for humanity if it leads to having super intelligence in space and abundance.

Maybe you should look at places such as Japan to see what a nation in decline looks like.

After all, this is the HN bubble showing their naivety with the rest of the world.

How does a thought experiment which deliberately simplifies things beyond all reason show that most predictions are too simplistic? You might as well take that Jensen Huang joke going around with a graph showing infinite mistresses within a few years as an example.

> ... and almost all industrialized nations are more worried about population decline than overpopulation these days.

Yup because governments are always ever more indebted and their only out of the public debt --which they never ever intended to repay-- was through inflation due to unlimited growth.

That's why they're worried. Population decline, if it's not too abrupt, ain't necessarily a bad thing: less pollution, work for everybody, more housing for everybody, etc.

But our entire lives we've been hammered with messages we don't ever dare to question anymore like "2% to 3% inflation is good".

That's why Europe is desperately importing tens of millions in a few years from the third world and the fourth world: desperate politicians, who want to continue running their public deficits scam, do believe they'll compensate people "not having enough kids" by bringing massively people from Africa and the Middle East and India into Europe. They do believe this shall allow them to keep the ponzi (pensions / 2% to 3% inflation / public debt / etc.) running.

Population decline is only a concern for pyramid scheme economics boosters, and is sold to the public based upon fear mongering nonsense that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In many ways population decline could be a panacea.

The population explosion, on the other hand...well we've already baked in extremely severe consequences, and people are learning that when you have more vying for the same, there are consequences.

One is a legitimate, extremely severe problem that is going to cause enormous harm to humanity. The other is fake.

[dead]

[dead]

One of the major contributor to global population decline is one-child policy of china, which is a direct result of such type of predictions (not saying its a correct one, but a reverse self-fulfilling one).

I guess if global warming is fixed in the future, you will also come up and say huh, those predictions about global warming are too simplistic, we are fine.