BTW, Robin, if you think we are so entertaining to future generations, does that greatly up your belief that we are in a simulation?

It might not be as personally satisfying as, “My readers are stupid,” but it certainly explains the evidence.

those inclined to choose growth will eventually outnumber and take over those who choose stagnation.

This is ultimately what I take issue with. It’s a huge and unfounded assumption that large groups of people will systematically choose large families over higher individual wealth, even when they become geographically dispersed and begin to make up a large portion of the population. There simply isn’t evidence that this phenomenon will occur. It hinges on the assumption that reproductive culture is principally hereditary and is stable in the very long run (i.e. tens or hundreds of generations). Existing evidence rather directly contradicts this, as I understand it.

Even if you look at the subpopulations in the US that do have high fertility, I am reasonably sure that most of their children are, on average, as well off or better off than their parents. I’d also be surprised if their fertility doesn’t decline in direct proportion to their cultural assimilation over the generations.

Ok to be fair you did ask us what “which circus wonder are you?” which nobody seems to have answered… so here:

Nothing is fundamentally weird in our society, we have high growth because there is so much stuff lying around to exploit. We have bizarre beliefs because the brain is product of messy evolution and malfunctions easily… not because we are rich. (Want to see poor tribes bizarre beliefs and rituals? It doesn’t even compare)

Yeah sure there is some really freaky things that people may point back to that is unique. But their own era and all preceding ones will have their own unique little quirks as well that will stand out.

I agree but the controlled group will not necessarily stagnate, individuals will have enormous incentives to maintain their high per capita wealth, also lesser individuals means less coordination problems and will enable them to act more effectively in collectively leveraging their resources to protect their societies way of life.

“Because otherwise they won’t be able to eat (buy their electricity and pay for their hardware).”

Of course work will be required, but WHY would anyone do any interesting if the reward is only subsistence, there is no real ROI in purchasing an education or specialty, might as well become a subsistence farmer then… or more likely work the system to receive my meager subsistence ration.

The modern specialist economy and the resulting rapid progress we are seeing is the result of enormous surpluses, something like the Information economy is impossible in Robin’s Malthusian world, em’s or no em’s.

The static stagnant group will be the one that can’t control their population growth and fall into the Malthusian trap.

“You could, but your descendants will either be few in number and irrelevant,”

Money/Wealth also votes. I would in effect control my descendants numbers to maintain a minimal per capita wealth, this will allow them the “luxury” of education etc. making them smarter. Combine that with the significant resources of the Trust which could be leveraged to gain more resources allowing more growth etc.

Smaller, Smarter, Better Coordination, Significant Resources and the ability to effectively leverage it to grow. More power etc.

Far from stagnant, out competed and irrelevant.