Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
Sorry, that was a drive by.
OK... per 100 people units, how many are going to be scientists that do something that has a profound good effect on humanity?
I'm not gonna look it up but I'd say it's closer to 1:100 than 99:100.
In the meantime, per productive scientist, their "caseload" of human units increased exponentially. 
Or.... right now, today, there are more scientists than ever in history.
Are we better off today or not?
hmmmm |
Apology accepted, but why follow it up w/ another one?
Generally speaking, the percentage of productive people is going to be roughly the same independent of population, maybe even greater w/ more people since there won't be as much energy around for people to go four-wheelinz0rz and all. But really it's more or less the same AFAIK. There's no "caseload" of human units, at least based on my experience at uni. I can't demand that someone research what I want them to.
The question IMO isn't are we better off now, but are we better off sucking down the planet's resources w/ 10 billion people or sucking down the same resources w/ 1 billion people? Arguably, if the trends were reversed, with relatively equitable resource consumption and the growth rate of average lifestyle decreasing while the rate of population growth was increasing, I'd be inclined to agree that population was the problem, but as it stands that isn't the case. There's an incredibly inequitable distribution of resources, w/ most of the resources going to a relatively small group of people, population growth is declining overall and has been for the past half century or so, while the growth in average lifestyle has shown no sign of doing the same. That points to a problem w/ average lifestyle, not a problem w/ population. If the trends reverse, then sure, it's population, but until then I'm pretty sure you know where I stand.