@Whisper Declaring me fractally wrong without having addressed the things I've actually brought up, then going on a Star Trek TNG dialogue level technobabble jag about something different, that's quite rich. I've discussed the concept of too many people with many types of people in many contexts using many approaches over the decades, and have come to expect people to refuse to face this topic directly for a variety of reasons and using a variety of defense mechanisms. I had hoped for something better from you.

Anyway...

My main premise here is that there are too many people already on Earth, and as a whole humans and the planet suffer for it. This has already reached a level where humanity can't innovate our way out of it, and the more humans we carelessly pile on, the less able we'll become able to.

Main problem: You're denying there already exist too many people because humanity will continue to innovate our way out of problems. Basically pitting your hopes upon unrealized improvements and innovations. This is as foolish as falling in love with a person for their potential.

You're not addressing a technophobe or naive person. I've been immersed in technology for decades. I've witnessed the arc of improvement, and stand intimately familiar with the costs and tradeoffs associated with them. This also gives me direct insight as to how much more efficiency gains can get wrung from further improvements.

I see these as promising a more across the board age of prosperity that will be sustainable for many generations to come... for a world population of say 800 million, but not 8 billion. Continuing to grow in numbers to 11 billion when we're barely managing with 8, without working systems in place already, is planet wide madness.

As Elon Musk famously pointed out, you don't get your hoverboard and your flying car by magic,

Answer then, how will humanity look when half a billion Indians and half a billion Chinese expect and obtain private automobiles, two generations hence? Have them all drive Teslas instead of ICE cars, when I believe you yourself has pointed out that our power grid can't possibly support a majority of the car owners now switching to electric cars?

Paul Erlich wasn't wrong with his basic premise, only his projected timeline. It doesn't matter how much quantity of resources exist on Earth, but how much economically harvestable (all aspects considered) quantities can get recovered.

@Whisper not really.

The thing is that most people (i.e. most men, I don't care about women) are alienated enough from society as it is. It's been traditional for religions to sell them a vision for the future, instead of a solution for today. Not that you haven't personally provided ample tips for individualism elsewhere. But, of course, individualism and a collective vision are quite at odds, especially when there are different status roles in the later.

Basically, what technology and more products etc can't solve is the general issue of status, which is a definite bottleneck to getting pussy. Even the utopian Martian colony of eugenic optimizations will have the hubbab, and most probably collapse, from the unchecked female sexual strategy, just like Owen's New Harmony did.

What really matters for the kind of society we have is not the technological level. It's how resources (read: pussy) are distributed. Sure, more technologically advanced societies can and have taken over less advanced ones. But you seem to provide a vision for humanity as a whole, and in that case the problems I've identified stand.

@Whisper Not even the smartest guy in the room can formulate a meaningful rebuttal to the claim. Even with a deux ex machina like breeder reactors becoming common, the population is projected to swell from the current 8 billion to approach 11 billion by 2100. With that many people competing for and consuming Earth's resources, there exists no way or place that your grandchildrens' generation can enjoy the standard of living we do today. Not even so-called renewables can renew fast enough with the necessary burn rate of that many people.

Most rebuttals I've heard over the decades boil down to but then other races will outbreed and subsume our own!!1! which is also a dodge of the question.

If humanity collectively and universally recognized the danger, we could voluntarily reach a stable and sustainable-for-countless-generations population of say 800 million. The floor for potential individual standard of living would inevitably rise much higher. This song wouldn't be ironic if it were so.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueivjr3f8xg

@deeplydisturbed

The cartoon vampire thing makes it hard to take this seriously.

Another thing that makes it very hard to take seriously is that the analysis has all the depth of a mud puddle.

Look, I get it, okay? These women are super shallow and unaware that they are the authors of their own misery. Everyone gets it. Agoraphobic recluses get it. Kalahari bushmen get it.

So, it's super easy to dunk on them.

But what's not happening here is any sort of analysis.

It's all just "hah, hah, hah, these women dated Bad Boys(tm) in their twenties and now they are lonely" with a strong undercurrent of "Kristi should have dated ME in high school! I was a Nice Guy, unlike that bastard Chad who cheated on her with Cindy! (who also should have dated me instead)."

Schadenfreude may be fun if your childhood was sexless, but it doesn't really go anywhere.

There's no analysis of why these women behave this way. Women didn't suddenly become more shallow and narcissistic in the 1970s onwards. If they are behaving differently, it's because something changed to influence them.