▲ 493 ▼ AI experts return from China stunned: The U.S. grid is so weak, the race may already be over (fortune.com) submitted 1 year ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world 159 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) So, why are declining birth rates not a problem? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (2 children) Why are they? Fewer people, fewer mouths to feed, more value on labor, more natural resources and real estate for the rest of us. We cant grow forever. Dropping total population in the most ethical way then keeping things steady seems like the most nonviolent cool way to do this. Tor fucks sake there's like ten billion people we could keep everything we need going, easily, with half that. Anf imagibe if we actually valuee people instead of treating them like disposable garbage to throw away in poverty and wars! Wouldn't that be cool? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, but my point was that our current economic system can't deal with, not that we can't deal with it in general. Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power, which they won't do willingly, even as the walls are closing in. (In fact, when it comes to global warming, the walls are closing in). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago Systems adapt. Extrapolation based on current state is often fallacious. Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power Implicit in that statement is a huge and largely unfounded assumption that there's only one possible future state, and that it's as you say it is. And, even if it means that the powerful are forced to give up power, well, that's happened before and it's not impossible that it'll happen again. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago Because the big rationale for it being a problem is that GDP declines as population declines. But GDP is an aggregate measure that's dependent on population, so that's not a problem, it's a tautology. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (2 children) Why are they? Fewer people, fewer mouths to feed, more value on labor, more natural resources and real estate for the rest of us. We cant grow forever. Dropping total population in the most ethical way then keeping things steady seems like the most nonviolent cool way to do this. Tor fucks sake there's like ten billion people we could keep everything we need going, easily, with half that. Anf imagibe if we actually valuee people instead of treating them like disposable garbage to throw away in poverty and wars! Wouldn't that be cool? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, but my point was that our current economic system can't deal with, not that we can't deal with it in general. Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power, which they won't do willingly, even as the walls are closing in. (In fact, when it comes to global warming, the walls are closing in). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago Systems adapt. Extrapolation based on current state is often fallacious. Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power Implicit in that statement is a huge and largely unfounded assumption that there's only one possible future state, and that it's as you say it is. And, even if it means that the powerful are forced to give up power, well, that's happened before and it's not impossible that it'll happen again. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah, but my point was that our current economic system can't deal with, not that we can't deal with it in general. Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power, which they won't do willingly, even as the walls are closing in. (In fact, when it comes to global warming, the walls are closing in). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago Systems adapt. Extrapolation based on current state is often fallacious. Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power Implicit in that statement is a huge and largely unfounded assumption that there's only one possible future state, and that it's as you say it is. And, even if it means that the powerful are forced to give up power, well, that's happened before and it's not impossible that it'll happen again. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago Systems adapt. Extrapolation based on current state is often fallacious. Migrating away from the current system would require the powerful to give up their power Implicit in that statement is a huge and largely unfounded assumption that there's only one possible future state, and that it's as you say it is. And, even if it means that the powerful are forced to give up power, well, that's happened before and it's not impossible that it'll happen again. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago Because the big rationale for it being a problem is that GDP declines as population declines. But GDP is an aggregate measure that's dependent on population, so that's not a problem, it's a tautology. permalink fedilink source parent