Transcript
I do worry about certain existential risks like the low growth rate, which is accelerating in most countries. And really, this is one of those things that I think is underrated as an issue, is that if there are humans, there's no humanity.
You have to make them somehow and I think we should be very concerned about the accelerating implosion of the birth rate. This is a super big deal. Basically nothing else matters if there are no humans. As a person as a initial premise. You must have humans for there to be civilization. Unless we're gonna leave it all to the robots.
In these sort of extreme form of the environmentalist movement, people start to view humans as a plague on the surface of the earth, as a fundamentally bad thing, and with the implication that if all humans disappeared, somehow it will be will be better off.
This is the extinction movement, and I think you can really at a fundamental level you can think of things as a fight between expansionist and extinction philosophies. And that’s what really matters. If humans go extinct or or civilization collapses, whatever policies we may have are irrelevant.
Um so first and foremost, we must have an expansionist philosophy for civilization and for consciousness. We must seek to go beyond what we've done in the past to increase the number of humans. This is incredibly fundamental. So one way or another, this must happen.
So the final message is go forth and procreate. Yes, go forth and multiply.
We explain and empirically demonstrate why more people with freedom means much more resource abundance in our new book, Superabundance, available at Amazon. You can read more at superabundance.com. There has never been a better time to create more life.
Gale Pooley is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and a board member at Human Progress.
Typo in second sentence. Should be: ... is that if there are [no] humans, there's no humanity.
Gale, the major argument against a falling population, one that I have made myself: ( https://www.lianeon.org/p/we-dont-have-enough-people ) is that more people means greater overall “computational power” to solve problems.
But fertility rates began falling just as we invented the microprocessor and they continue to fall as our machines get smarter. This makes me wonder if this fear could be unfounded, especially with AI able to do much of the thinking for us. The human population could fall while total “compute" keeps on rising. I don't know, just food for thought.