Quote:
Originally Posted by shovel
You're going to have to explain this to me, I'm concerned about us wiping ourselves out by making the planet inhospitable (to us or to our food/neighbor animals) . What wiping out are you talking about? aliens or something?  |
The key assumption is just basic biology, that humans will behave like any other species, and population will be limited due to
whatever environmental constraints. The biggest difference is that there's a wider range of variability in terms of resource consumption w/ humans than there is w/ most other animals, so we can choose to have 1 billion sucking down the resources the planet can provide in a sustainable manner, or 10 billion sucking down a tenth of what the 1 billion suck down per capita. The difference would be like people on average driving conventional Fjord Explod3rs versus electric Pius/V0lt like vehicles.
Given the same environmental impact, would we be better off w/ n many researchers/scientists/engineers/etc, or 10n many researchers/scientists/etc? Two brains are better than one, and ten billion brains are probably better than one billion brains given the same impact on the Earth, at least IMO.