Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ivan Vendrov's avatar

Surprising to see this from the author of the Age of Em! I think a more straightforward extrapolation of current trends is a world of declining population but increasing software.

In response to worries about economic decline, current governments seem much more likely to double down on software (by making huge investments in software R&D, datacenters, robots, AI) than in subsidizing parents to have more children. We might disagree with their values, but with typical government goals of economic growth and national security I'm not sure they're mistaken!

Even without government intervention, software will increasingly require less human labor to develop and maintain. A single innovation (language models as coding assistants) has already led to a ~2x human labor cost reduction in software development, and a further 10x reduction this decade seems very plausible. There's no plausible fertility decline fast enough to counteract that rate of productivity growth.

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

Extrapolating today's trends in the far future makes for fun scenarios, always and ad absurdum. Doing it for 3 trends at once - population/hardware/software - seems useless. Population is the most stable trend, yep it will peak at 11 billion and go slowly down. But during this century this is counteracted by: a) the raising amount of people taking more part in the global economy (+science) - even Pakistanis and Nigerians shall have a higher GDP per head in 2100 than now b) the higher birth-rate of the elite (US-households with an income of over 1 million a year are well over a TFR of 2.1. It is not just Elon Musk.) The global market in 2100 will NOT be smaller than today. And innovation? We just had GPT4; in my life, I have seen no innovation slowing (outside Japan, maybe), and we all are expecting a major UP with GPT 5. We may not even need many people to keep hardware and software up and running and ever improving.

As I said here before, I doubt a long deep fall of population over centuries to pre 1900 levels. Those who feel less like having kids will strongly be selected against, by definition. When Japanese have living space as large as in the US (instead of "rabbit houses"), growth may pick up. When energy will be abundant (PV or fusion), and homes robot-built: what to enjoy more than cuddling your next (not last) baby? - In 1800 there were 30 million Japanese and no one considered the island deserted. In 1900 there lived less than 40 million in France. When Einstein had his golden year, there were less than 60 million Germans (let alone Swiss), many just kids, most still poor, a tiny percentage with university-degrees. A time of stagnation, really?

Expand full comment
49 more comments...

No posts