What's the optimum human population of the Earth?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
There are some categories in which are aren't such increasing costs. Fields like computer science, where a single innovation can be applied to all of your current capital at zero or small fixed marginal cost.

xpost

scientific innovation as a subsitute for capital, instead of a complement. Gotcha, though comp sci seems an odd example. at least to this layman. Well, no, youre right, I m thinking about how new software always seems to need new hardware, but the cost of the hardware is stable or declining, thanks to Moores law. Its hard to see what the software scientists could do in terms of fiiting more activity into less code as long as the chip makers keep making bloated code less costly in terms of hardware, right? Or are there things going on in compsci im missing (i know theres lots of discussion of compression algorithms as making the net and other comm more effective, but how does that relate to the growth in bandwidth (and to excess investment in physical capital by the telecoms in the '90s)? Im out of my depths here.

[Kuciwalker]

Software progresses two ways: it's able to do what it could do before more efficiently (which really means it can do it more often, i.e. solve larger problems), and it's able to do entirely new things. Hardware progresses and software takes advantage of this. While hardware speed growth is exponential, I'd argue software growth is super-exponential because it gets better hardware and better algorithms.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Lancer, would you agree that your idea of optimum population would depend on the technology level of civlization for any given point in time?

Certainly! However it would really depend on the scientific advance. If there were a method of doubling crop yields for an acre of land I would suggest that halving the land used would be preferable to doubling the population. This would further increase the elbow room per person and the areas of the planet given over to wildlife.

I don't see that more people on this planet is an improvement if we set a sensible base amount. I'd guess half a billion...somewhere in there.

If the scientific advance was a portal to other planets I suggest that population should be allowed to grow like crazy, in fact as fast as the rest of the universe can absorb new colonists...unlimited I'd imagine. As fast as population grew it would be sent off to the frontier.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lancer


Certainly! However it would really depend on the scientific advance. If there were a method of doubling crop yields for an acre of land I would suggest that halving the land used would be preferable to doubling the population. This would further increase the elbow room per person and the areas of the planet given over to wildlife.

I don't see that more people on this planet is an improvement if we set a sensible base amount. I'd guess half a billion...somewhere in there.

If the scientific advance was a portal to other planets I suggest that population should be allowed to grow like crazy, in fact as fast as the rest of the universe can absorb new colonists...unlimited I'd imagine. As fast as population grew it would be sent off to the frontier.

what if instead of other planets humanity had to settle for something like a dyson sphere?

[Lancer]

Even better.
If humanity achieves the ability to build one then there's no reason why we couldn't take it and head out for the stars at a nice, leisurely pace, yes?

[Zkribbler]

Opps. A dyson sphere is built around a star. It's not something you tote around with you.

[Lancer]

Not enough material in the solar system. Instead we should build one around a smaller fusion reactor.

I'll get right on it.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Lancer
Not enough material in the solar system. Instead we should build one around a smaller fusion reactor.

I'll get right on it.

there's enough material. these things don't have to be a terribly dense shell.

[Heresson]

Re: What's the optimum human population of the Earth?

Poles


(it's not in quantity, but quality)

[Flubber]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the optimum human population of the Earth?

Originally posted by Whoha


I didnt say you ever had to interact with the ones outside of your preference. also that is a lack of foresight, those 10 million are going to get old, so you'll need the younger girls in about 20-30 years.

I'm not as greedy and I figure 3000 drop dead gorgeous women would be more than enough . Say 100 at every age from 1 to 30. THat should cover me fior my lifetime. I'm 38. By the time the babies hit 18, I'm 56 and I'm 68 by the time they are 30-- I think that will seem plenty young