Why humanity is fucked

[Trivial]

We're fucked because of Dunbar's number.  Though I suppose if we exploit that concept somehow we could fix it.  Though I guess the other idea is to expand our brains to make Dunbar's number larger.  But then we'd have people upset over earthquakes on the other side of the world and with communication technology we'll be sad all the damn time.

Though I guess we can control that too since you're tinkering with people's heads to begin with.

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's not Dunbar's number that causes the problem. It's how we interact with the ones outside the monkeysphere. Laws and politics goes some way to addressing this but there's still that whole us and them bullshit that fucks everything up. You don't have to recognise every human by name for it to work, you just have to recognise them as allies, rather than opposition to be fucked over and exploited.

[LMNO]

It's not Dunbar's number that causes the problem. It's how we interact with the ones outside the monkeysphere. Laws and politics goes some way to addressing this but there's still that whole us and them bullshit that fucks everything up. You don't have to recognise every human by name for it to work, you just have to recognise them as allies, rather than opposition to be fucked over and exploited.

That's some serious truth, there.  Wasn't expecting that, for some reason.

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's not Dunbar's number that causes the problem. It's how we interact with the ones outside the monkeysphere. Laws and politics goes some way to addressing this but there's still that whole us and them bullshit that fucks everything up. You don't have to recognise every human by name for it to work, you just have to recognise them as allies, rather than opposition to be fucked over and exploited.

That's some serious truth, there.  Wasn't expecting that, for some reason.

It's nothing profound. It's just a logically, intellectually and tactically superior method. The reason humanity is pretty much fucked, as per my OP, is that none of them seem capable of understanding this. A species so utterly incapable of the most rudimentary strategic thinking really don't have a hope in hell of surviving long term.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I like the fact most of the I hate science crowd will die off soon.

HAW HAW!  Their numbers are GROWING.

World wide, or here in Merka?

Damn near everywhere except continental Europe.

... where they seem, MAYBE, to my moving toward the high-living-standard, low-birthrate society I think would give us the best long-term shot at success.

[P3nT4gR4m]

As the country best equipped and most mentally predisposed to exterminating everyone else, I'd give you guys the best short-term shot at success, too 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm not completely ignoring what you said about expanding population base being incompatible with a high standard of living. I'm just not convinced that the scenario you posit is the only possible one. I agree that natural population growth drops as living standards rise, for the reasons you mention. My only difference from your position was a theoretical one, where it could be possible to sustain population growth without "subjugation and control of women." As for parenting and nurturing, maybe you're right, or maybe there are ways to care for kids without the traditional "mother" and "father" roles we've used for a the past few hundred thousand years. Stranger things have happened, and as you point out societies can be flexible and adapt to new realities.

As this all relates to the OP, my only point is that humanity isn't necessarily fucked. Sure, we probably are, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible to survive long-term, even longer than the lifespan of Earth, if we really wanted to. Retreating to the forest certainly won't carry us that far, but technology could, if we embrace it and guide it with a little collective intelligence.

Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.

You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's not Dunbar's number that causes the problem. It's how we interact with the ones outside the monkeysphere. Laws and politics goes some way to addressing this but there's still that whole us and them bullshit that fucks everything up. You don't have to recognise every human by name for it to work, you just have to recognise them as allies, rather than opposition to be fucked over and exploited.

Truth.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'm not completely ignoring what you said about expanding population base being incompatible with a high standard of living. I'm just not convinced that the scenario you posit is the only possible one. I agree that natural population growth drops as living standards rise, for the reasons you mention. My only difference from your position was a theoretical one, where it could be possible to sustain population growth without "subjugation and control of women." As for parenting and nurturing, maybe you're right, or maybe there are ways to care for kids without the traditional "mother" and "father" roles we've used for a the past few hundred thousand years. Stranger things have happened, and as you point out societies can be flexible and adapt to new realities.

As this all relates to the OP, my only point is that humanity isn't necessarily fucked. Sure, we probably are, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible to survive long-term, even longer than the lifespan of Earth, if we really wanted to. Retreating to the forest certainly won't carry us that far, but technology could, if we embrace it and guide it with a little collective intelligence.

Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.

You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?

Sounds like a real unshakable belief you have yourself there. I'm convinced that, right now there's no alternative but wait until they have a neural implant that has newborn babies coming out the womb able to read, write and play the banjo and all bets are off.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm not completely ignoring what you said about expanding population base being incompatible with a high standard of living. I'm just not convinced that the scenario you posit is the only possible one. I agree that natural population growth drops as living standards rise, for the reasons you mention. My only difference from your position was a theoretical one, where it could be possible to sustain population growth without "subjugation and control of women." As for parenting and nurturing, maybe you're right, or maybe there are ways to care for kids without the traditional "mother" and "father" roles we've used for a the past few hundred thousand years. Stranger things have happened, and as you point out societies can be flexible and adapt to new realities.

As this all relates to the OP, my only point is that humanity isn't necessarily fucked. Sure, we probably are, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible to survive long-term, even longer than the lifespan of Earth, if we really wanted to. Retreating to the forest certainly won't carry us that far, but technology could, if we embrace it and guide it with a little collective intelligence.

Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.

You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?

Sounds like a real unshakable belief you have yourself there. I'm convinced that, right now there's no alternative but wait until they have a neural implant that has newborn babies coming out the womb able to read, write and play the banjo and all bets are off.

Yeah, I can't help it; I kind of have this "science" thing that I look to for clues about reality.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I'm not completely ignoring what you said about expanding population base being incompatible with a high standard of living. I'm just not convinced that the scenario you posit is the only possible one. I agree that natural population growth drops as living standards rise, for the reasons you mention. My only difference from your position was a theoretical one, where it could be possible to sustain population growth without "subjugation and control of women." As for parenting and nurturing, maybe you're right, or maybe there are ways to care for kids without the traditional "mother" and "father" roles we've used for a the past few hundred thousand years. Stranger things have happened, and as you point out societies can be flexible and adapt to new realities.

As this all relates to the OP, my only point is that humanity isn't necessarily fucked. Sure, we probably are, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible to survive long-term, even longer than the lifespan of Earth, if we really wanted to. Retreating to the forest certainly won't carry us that far, but technology could, if we embrace it and guide it with a little collective intelligence.

Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.

You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?

Sounds like a real unshakable belief you have yourself there. I'm convinced that, right now there's no alternative but wait until they have a neural implant that has newborn babies coming out the womb able to read, write and play the banjo and all bets are off.

YOU WATCH WHAT YOU SAY 'BOUT BANJOS, BOY.
  \

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Otherwise, we're basically talking about magic water and quantums, and then we're in Holist Country. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I'm not completely ignoring what you said about expanding population base being incompatible with a high standard of living. I'm just not convinced that the scenario you posit is the only possible one. I agree that natural population growth drops as living standards rise, for the reasons you mention. My only difference from your position was a theoretical one, where it could be possible to sustain population growth without "subjugation and control of women." As for parenting and nurturing, maybe you're right, or maybe there are ways to care for kids without the traditional "mother" and "father" roles we've used for a the past few hundred thousand years. Stranger things have happened, and as you point out societies can be flexible and adapt to new realities.

As this all relates to the OP, my only point is that humanity isn't necessarily fucked. Sure, we probably are, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible to survive long-term, even longer than the lifespan of Earth, if we really wanted to. Retreating to the forest certainly won't carry us that far, but technology could, if we embrace it and guide it with a little collective intelligence.

Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.

You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?

Sounds like a real unshakable belief you have yourself there. I'm convinced that, right now there's no alternative but wait until they have a neural implant that has newborn babies coming out the womb able to read, write and play the banjo and all bets are off.

Yeah, I can't help it; I kind of have this "science" thing that I look to for clues about reality.

It's true, and you're right, and yes I'm kind of off in lala science fiction land. So given what we know now about relationships and social dynamics there's no reason to argue with you. I just like daydreaming, but I'm not sure that what we know now will necessarily mean anything by the time the question of long-term human survival is really an immediate question.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Thanks for the dialogue; I had to write a short essay this morning and I only had a couple minutes so I used this conversation as a launchpad.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm not completely ignoring what you said about expanding population base being incompatible with a high standard of living. I'm just not convinced that the scenario you posit is the only possible one. I agree that natural population growth drops as living standards rise, for the reasons you mention. My only difference from your position was a theoretical one, where it could be possible to sustain population growth without "subjugation and control of women." As for parenting and nurturing, maybe you're right, or maybe there are ways to care for kids without the traditional "mother" and "father" roles we've used for a the past few hundred thousand years. Stranger things have happened, and as you point out societies can be flexible and adapt to new realities.

As this all relates to the OP, my only point is that humanity isn't necessarily fucked. Sure, we probably are, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible to survive long-term, even longer than the lifespan of Earth, if we really wanted to. Retreating to the forest certainly won't carry us that far, but technology could, if we embrace it and guide it with a little collective intelligence.

Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.

You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?

Sounds like a real unshakable belief you have yourself there. I'm convinced that, right now there's no alternative but wait until they have a neural implant that has newborn babies coming out the womb able to read, write and play the banjo and all bets are off.

Yeah, I can't help it; I kind of have this "science" thing that I look to for clues about reality.

It's true, and you're right, and yes I'm kind of off in lala science fiction land. So given what we know now about relationships and social dynamics there's no reason to argue with you. I just like daydreaming, but I'm not sure that what we know now will necessarily mean anything by the time the question of long-term human survival is really an immediate question.

I love sci-fi, and I like to daydream too.

However, long-term human survival is an immediate question right now.