TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The world might run out of people

103 点作者 tombot超过 6 年前

22 条评论

adrianN超过 6 年前
That&#x27;s interesting. I&#x27;ve heard the exact opposite opinion somewhere, that the education of women doesn&#x27;t have as big an effect as anticipated by the models, especially in Africa.<p>This graphs shows it<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;grapher&#x2F;womens-educational-attainment-vs-fertility" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;grapher&#x2F;womens-educational-attain...</a><p>For some countries like India or China, the effect is very strong. Just a few years of education drastically reduce the number of children, but for other countries like Uganda or Zambia the effect is much smaller. The original source where I first heard this (which I sadly can&#x27;t find again) claimed this was due women wanting almost as many children as men in these countries.
评论 #19095374 未加载
评论 #19096163 未加载
评论 #19095542 未加载
评论 #19095738 未加载
评论 #19096338 未加载
whack超过 6 年前
Our economy and intellectual progress is massively predicated on specialisation of labor. When I consider any single aspect of our life, even something as &quot;simple&quot; as how elevators work, it&#x27;s astounding the amount of complexity that goes into it. Complexity that we can handle because we divvy it up amongst many many people who are completely specialized in understanding and fulfilling that task.<p>Gradual increases in population don&#x27;t really scare me. Technological progress has always scaled with population, and technology can free us of natural resource constraints. But in a world of shrinking population, entire fields of practical human knowledge and know-how can be lost forever.
评论 #19095321 未加载
评论 #19095509 未加载
评论 #19095322 未加载
评论 #19095781 未加载
评论 #19095501 未加载
评论 #19095667 未加载
sametmax超过 6 年前
I haven&#x27;t heard of a specie disapearing primarily because it didn&#x27;t have enough babies.<p>Even the giant panda, before arriving to this situation, had seen their forests devasted by us.<p>So at best, I expect our specie to mess up in some big ways, then maybe, the finish blow will be reproduction.<p>Yet I doubt it.<p>First, other threats have a way higher likelyhood. India has no water, terrible social tension, instable border situations and the nuclear bomb. We killed 60% of the insects. There are microparticules of plastic everywhere in the oceans. Not to mention climat change, our mad scientist attitude towards everything, and the systematic conversion of limited natural assets into short term cash machines.<p>Second, fertility is something we have been working on for some time now, and our mad, but smart, scientists are pretty good at it.<p>Lastly, I even doubt that natural fertility will ever be a permanent problem. Nature has cycles to regular species population, and may impose on us some drastic mesure, but like all cycles, it goes back to where it was.
评论 #19096005 未加载
评论 #19095750 未加载
评论 #19100187 未加载
评论 #19095934 未加载
pjc50超过 6 年前
Sigh. Someone has a book to sell by going against conventional wisdom, and the classic approach of taking a small trend and drawing a huge long straight line through it. It&#x27;s not really surprising that this has happened, given the extent of efforts to reduce birth rates as a way out of poverty.
评论 #19095453 未加载
评论 #19096074 未加载
vages超过 6 年前
Analogy: If someone on a diet keeps losing weight, they will disappear too. But outside pressures and incentives change, and there&#x27;s also internal regulation. Your weight will stabilize sooner or later. I think the same goes for populations. When people become scarce, making more of them will be rewarded in some way or another.<p>I&#x27;m not sure the authors believe humanity will celibate itself out of existence. But I&#x27;m sure they&#x27;ll sell more books with &quot;extinction&quot; rather than &quot;stabilization&quot; as a headline.
lisper超过 6 年前
&gt; “In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” they write. “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”<p>I&#x27;ll give you very long odds against.
评论 #19095672 未加载
评论 #19095852 未加载
评论 #19096672 未加载
rainworld超过 6 年前
Quoting Spandrell:<p>At this moment, every single human population with an IQ over 95 has a fertility rate below replacement; and the places where the most intelligent and productive people tend to live, big cities, have generally fertility rates below 1. Not below 2, replacement, but below 1, half of replacement. As I’ve said again and again, big cities today are IQ shredders, where the genes that code for high intelligence go to get shredded in the corporate and bureaucratic rat-race, depriving humanity of the biological building blocks for a better future.
评论 #19096467 未加载
评论 #19096022 未加载
评论 #19099643 未加载
评论 #19095975 未加载
评论 #19095987 未加载
评论 #19096004 未加载
评论 #19096135 未加载
评论 #19096029 未加载
matt4077超过 6 年前
I’m somewhat surprised by the tone of surprise in this article&#x2F;interview.<p>While I still frequently see references to “out-of-control population growth” among laypeople here on HN or on Twitter, often in reference to Africa, I have long gotten the impression that the scientific and political communities have turned to models showing drastically lower birth rates coinciding with increased development.<p>Lower infant mortality, access to birth control, and social safety nets that do not rely on immediate family are obvious factors here.<p>This is umabigoulsy good news, unless you posit a harm from not being born. In any case, it’s unlikely that humanity is going to disappear of its own choosing.
评论 #19095479 未加载
评论 #19095491 未加载
thomasahle超过 6 年前
I didn&#x27;t know this was controversial? The UN numbers referred to show that this is a likely outcome already on page 2.<p>At most the author seems to disagree with UN about ~1 billion people. Well within the uncertainty.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;population.un.org&#x2F;wpp&#x2F;Publications&#x2F;Files&#x2F;WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;population.un.org&#x2F;wpp&#x2F;Publications&#x2F;Files&#x2F;WPP2017_Key...</a>
Symmetry超过 6 年前
In the long run more agreeable (in a Big 5 sense) people have more children and agreeableness is fairly heritable so don&#x27;t expect the decline in birth rates to last forever.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;05&#x2F;falling-fertility-rates-shouldnt-be.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hopefullyintersting.blogspot.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;05&#x2F;falling-fer...</a>
stevehawk超过 6 年前
I&#x27;ve always kind of felt that man kind would go the way of the Mice Utopia experiment - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.returnofkings.com&#x2F;36915&#x2F;what-humans-can-learn-from-the-mice-utopia-experiment" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.returnofkings.com&#x2F;36915&#x2F;what-humans-can-learn-fr...</a>
arthurcamara超过 6 年前
The article makes it sound like a journalist traveled around 26 countries (~10% of countries), interviewed only a handful of people in each (the ones they could reach), and concluded that UN&#x27;s demographic projections - formulated with tons of data, academic methodologies, and carefully crafted by statisticians and global development experts - are wrong<p>The article and book sound pretty biased and clickbaity from what I can tell so far.<p>I&#x27;ll stick with the UN for now ;)
phkahler超过 6 年前
That ended rather abruptly, and never even mentioned decline or running out.
fallingfrog超过 6 年前
In the short term, this is good news. Sub-replacement fertility is not zero; if the world population were to reduce by 1% per year for a few decades, it would reduce the pressure on the Earth&#x27;s ecosystems and make some space for a better life for the remaining people. The population can always increase again.
est31超过 6 年前
This is indeed the leading theory about where the world will be heading over the next couple of decades. But I think the answer really depends on the culture of subpopulations.<p>In the USA for example, republican ruled states have more babies than democrat ruled states [1]. Or in israel, the fertility rate of the orthodox haredi minority is very high with 6.9 children per woman in 2017 (children not childbirths) compared to the non-haredi per-woman value of 2.4 [2].<p>So where will this lead us to? I think we&#x27;ll experience growing percentages of conservatives&#x2F;orthodox populations across the world while the liberal populations will shrink. Overall there will be a shrinkage but the conservative population growth might eat up that shrinkage and one day we might have overall growth again. But predicting the future is hard of course. For example, you could have the conversion of the conservative mindset towards liberalism which is happening in the entire world since maybe 100 years or such eat up every population increase of the conservative minorities.<p>Or you could have sci-fi tech that influences population infertility quite much, e.g. with artificial uteruses. With them, minorities that value large amounts of children might grow quicker and governments could want to influence how many children are being grown to fight population declines.<p>Or it might be figured out how to prevent&#x2F;reverse aging and the number of &quot;natural&quot; deaths will sink to zero. Then your population will start growing again even without the contribution from conservative&#x2F;orthodox minorities as the number of babies would still be larger than the (low) number of deaths due to accidents, crimes, etc.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fatherly.com&#x2F;health-science&#x2F;republicans-have-more-children&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fatherly.com&#x2F;health-science&#x2F;republicans-have-mor...</a> [2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.idi.org.il&#x2F;articles&#x2F;20439" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.idi.org.il&#x2F;articles&#x2F;20439</a>
评论 #19096714 未加载
lamename超过 6 年前
What I didn&#x27;t see mentioned in the article is the 3rd possibility: that the population will grow but eventually reach a stable plateau. I don&#x27;t know the number (&lt;12 bil maybe) but this was argued by Hans Rosling.<p>Can any demographers weigh in?
评论 #19095559 未加载
jelliclesfarm超过 6 年前
Optimal carrying capacity would be 1 billion.<p>We were half a billion in 1600s.<p>If everyone had 1&#x2F;2 surviving child, we will start coming down in about 200 years. Would love it if someone smarter than me can do that mathematical projection?<p>We need everyone to have 1&#x2F;2 child so we have genetic diversity.
bparsons超过 6 年前
Important to note that these two authors wrote another book in 2013, claiming that Canada would never elect a Liberal government again, because of demographics or something.<p>This was 18 months before the Liberals won a massive majority.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.ca&#x2F;Big-Shift-Canadian-Politics-Business&#x2F;dp&#x2F;1443416452" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.ca&#x2F;Big-Shift-Canadian-Politics-Business&#x2F;d...</a>
TheBeardKing超过 6 年前
Better data from Wikipedia: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sub-replacement_fertility" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sub-replacement_fertility</a>
Balgair超过 6 年前
I&#x27;ve not read the book yet (it only came out yesterday), but I think there are a few issues with the piece:<p>First, we should look at the authors of the book. Again, I&#x27;ve NOT read it, so this is based on a bit of internet sleuthing, and nothing more. The authors are primarily writers and news commentators in Canada. John Ibbitson writes for <i>The Glode and Mail</i> and is a political commentator[0]. Dr. Darrell Bricker is a pollster, political commentator, and author of a few books focusing on Canadian current events and issues[1]. I cannot speak for their personal knowledge on Earth&#x27;s population nor the accuracy of a book that I have not read. However, based on their Wikipedia bios, I can conclude that they are not career professionals in global demographics. Speaking personally, they give me a Robert Reich&#x2F;Thomas Friedman vibe more than anything.<p>Now, specifically about the <i>Wired</i> interview, there are some things that stand out:<p>&gt; And then I saw one woman reach in and pull out a smartphone, look at it, and put it back. And I realized, here we are in a slum in Delhi, and all these women have smartphones. Who can read. Who have data packages. And I was thinking, they have all of human knowledge in their hands now.<p>Depending on the time and place that the authors were in Delhi, this may be incorrect. <i>Free Basics</i> was recently shot down in 2016, so if they were there after that decision, they are correct [2]. If they were there before that ruling, then it is highly likely that these women were only able to access Facebook and not the internet at large. In addition, though the <i>Wired</i> interview was very short, they may not have had anything other than basic phone functionality. I would love to know more about the actual data on how internet penetration occurs in the lower castes&#x2F;classes of India.<p>&gt; The UN says they’re already baked into the numbers. But when I went and interviewed ... Wolfgang Lutz in Vienna, ... he walked me through his projections, ... All he was doing was adding one new variable to the forecast: the level of improvement in female education. And he comes up with a much lower number ..., somewhere between 8 billion and 9 billion.<p>Based on some quick googling of Dr. Lutz, I would be a fool to disagree with his expert assessments [3]. He holds two doctorates, one in Demographics from U. Penn, and one in Statistics from U. Vienna and has been working in global demographics issues since 1985. I&#x27;ve not researched him in depth, but he seems like a level-headed person without much of an &#x27;agenda&#x27;. He is a recent editor of a 1000+ page tome titled &quot;World Population and Human Capital in the Twenty-First Century&quot;[4]. So, if Dr. Lutz&#x27;s believes that just adding in female education will drop the world population by ~two billion babies, then I would be loathe to argue with him.<p>&gt; In the Philippines, for example, fertility rates dropped from 3.7 percent to 2.7 percent from 2003 to 2018. That&#x27;s a whole kid in 15 years.<p>I&#x27;m not certain what 3.7 <i>percent</i> fertility means. I believe that there may be a mis-transcription here. What I think the authors mean is that the Philippines had a <i>birth rate</i> of 3.7 children per woman. For reference, Yemen is an even more extreme example:. In 1986, the fertility rate was <i>over 9</i>. Today it stands at 4; so 5 children in 30 years.<p>Overall, the <i>Wired</i> article stands as a good promotion for the recently released book. However, I feel that listening from Dr. Lutz himself may be a better and more productive use of time [5][6].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;John_Ibbitson" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;John_Ibbitson</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Darrell_Bricker" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Darrell_Bricker</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnet.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnet.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;why-india-doesnt-want-free-basics&#x2F;</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wolfgang_Lutz" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wolfgang_Lutz</a><p>[4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;global.oup.com&#x2F;academic&#x2F;product&#x2F;world-population-and-human-capital-in-the-twenty-first-century-9780198703167?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;#" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;global.oup.com&#x2F;academic&#x2F;product&#x2F;world-population-and...</a><p>[5] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=xeDuJPJ5J5c" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=xeDuJPJ5J5c</a><p>[6] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=FQJ7EApyi-A" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=FQJ7EApyi-A</a>
foolsgold超过 6 年前
I was expecting a link to the National Inquirer, and not Wired.<p>Utter nonsense
alecco超过 6 年前
A world with declining population. Full of old people due to population pyramid inverted. Full of stupid, and impulsive, and likely religious zealots, as those are the only groups with fertility rates above replacement level.
评论 #19095383 未加载
评论 #19095736 未加载
评论 #19095456 未加载
评论 #19095535 未加载
评论 #19095674 未加载
评论 #19095646 未加载
评论 #19095405 未加载