The “more people leads to more answer” – maybe I need a name for this theory.
One thing that I am hopeful for is that we will find solutions to these problems brought about by technology, even if most people do not adopt them. The incredible reality that few people realize, esp. the Maltheusians, is that the number of problems may grow as population grows but so do the number of solutions (potentially).
The equation I came up with demonstrates that running out of material goods is almost impossible in the long run (and why we will actually have excess):
Solutions = Total population x sharing ideas.
Need actual formula.
So if there are for example two people to solve a problem, then there are only two possible interactions. If there are three people, then there are three; but once you get to four people, you have six potential interactions. Here are some examples. I am rounding:
1,000 people = 500,000 relationships.
| Number of People | Potential Interactions |
| 10 | 50 |
| 100 | 5,000 |
| 1000 | 500,000 |
| 10000 | 50,000,000 |
| 100000 | 5,000,000,000 |
So with 10 billion people on earth, you could have 5×1019 interactions (50 quintillions). AI could accelerate this dramatically of course.
The internet is the great communication medium of course, giving everyone with access to it thee potential to reach almost anyone else on earth (today, 2/3 people on earth have internet access). This is why it is the most powerful tool we may have ever seen. Books gave unidirectional communications; the phone gave voice and real-time communication globally; the internet added visual, data sharing, and asynchronous communications at rates far surpassing traditional communications, and at a much lower cost.
Another version of this would be: Answers to problems are the result of the total number of people working on problems, multiplied by the speed and reach of sharing those ideas.
Another version would be: the Malthusieans are always wrong.
This is why the Industrial Revolution, a mystery to many, coincided with rapid population growth. History demonstrates that scientific progress, like the Enlightenment, is far more likely to occur when populations are growing, although causality is intertwined. Are there more people because of better technology or better tech because there are more people. Yes. Logically, other factors were at play as well. For example, previous to this time, the freedom to solve problems and share them, or capitalism, was prohibited.
The trend should be pretty exponential, which is what we see, both in general population growth, and technological progress (e.g. Moore’s Law)
This is why voices, like Peter Diamandis, are generally correct in that the future is full of abundance (too much), not scarcity (too little).
If you take a problem that one person is working on and give it to a million people to work on, the chances of solving it just went up a million times, generally speaking.
Assume then that one person solves the problem. Who benefits?
If the solution, or information for the solution, is shared with the remaining 999,999 people, then all have benefited from the 1 person. This sharing once limited to the face-to-face world, accelerated with the telegraph, phone, and now in hyperspeed via the internet.
Another way to look at it is if each person is working on a separate problem, and everyone shares the answer to their own problems, then everyone benefits from the answers of 1,000,000 people.
Of course, the actual benefit probably lies somewhere in the middle as the problems we face today are increasingly complex and require more people to solve them.
This is why Malthusian mindsets have always existed, and are currently popular. They fail to understand how economics actually work (e.g. unintended consequences). I also find it interesting that people fall into one camp or the other. E.g. You think free markets, less regulation, and large populations are the problem. Others believe the opposite to be generally true.
This is Why Technology has Accelerated for so Long: Growing Populations.
Conversely, some suggest that large human populations are a problem, yet, that is why we have the quality of life that we do.
If such people get their wish, and there is a massive reduction in population (e.g. war, fertility rates, societal collapse, or destruction of other kinds), if large enough, then the quality of life could go back to the Dark Ages.
If people decline, technology may decelerate with it, generally speaking, although with AI and robots, this could change as such replacing the need for people entirely.
Will the Future Decouple These Two Trends?
It is possible that as technology begins to develop on its own, those populations either:
- Increase
- Stay the same
- Decrease (which defies history at the basic level)
If no one dies, however, a likely scenario here shortly, the population may continue to grow slowly, but surely, indefinitely, as death rates lower, and fertility continues to slow, the net effect is that all existing models of population growth are completely wrong.
To me, however, implosion seems the most likely though, as it fits the general thesis of this site, although it’s hard to say “this time is different.” But, even if the population increases, the benefits of being human may evaporate regardless.
To summarize:
Most people think the future is scarce, running out of resources, and depleting the environment, while most of the world starves.
Then second-level thinkers realize that infinite wealth is the most likely outcome, regardless of the socio-political-economic problem side of things.
Then I think at an even deeper realization: Accelerating, even unlimited abundance is probably a larger problem.
Either way, there are several possible outcomes of the future, and most do not seem positive. Whether it’s intentional damage or destruction of population growth through pleasure, it doesn’t matter.
I am probably wrong though because I expect the number of people thinking and working on the same problems I discuss here is increasing rapidly as I write this, and a primary reason I want to share my ideas with others (to network with likeminded problem solvers).
So, even if most people succumb to decline due to unimaginable success, perhaps a few will succeed extraordinarily. At least that seems evolutionary in principle. The Amish/Mennonites may be living proof of that to some degree. Perhaps the 1% idea will apply to fertility. 1% of the population will be responsible for 99% of its future growth.
HumanIT 