Yes, I think the reasonable objection is that “population growth” is only a one way to achieve the (selfishly) desired outcome, and that it would be bad to focus on it at the exclusion of everything else.
For example, you could also get more research by increasing average human IQ, whether by genetic engineering or some form of eugenics. (The eugenics doesn’t have to be coercive, we haven’t picked even the lowest hanging fruit of encouraging healthy young men with high IQ to donate more sperms.)
The existing smart humans probably also could be used much better. Education sucks; special education for gifted kids is a taboo at many places. Scientists waste a lot of time doing paperwork. Scientific articles are paywalled. Many people do bullshit jobs, because those pay well and sometimes you don’t have the skills necessary to start your own company. (Or maybe we could just open borders for people with IQ over 150.)
Basically, seeing all this inefficiency makes “we need to increase the population” sound like motivated reasoning.
*
That all said, maybe it is a sad truth that all these things are politically difficult to fix, and the population growth is after all the most likely way to actually get more research done.
I feel that you’re only paying attention to the “more geniuses and researchers” part and ignoring the parts about market size, better matching, more niches?
Also “focus on it at the exclusion of everything else” is a strawman, I’m not advocating that of course. Certainly increasing intelligence would be good (although we don’t know how to do that yet!) Better education would be great and I am a strong advocate of that. Same for better scientific institutions, etc.
I am not blaming you personally, but the Overton window contains the population growth and not much else.
market size, better matching, more niches
Improving the population (genetically or by education) would have some effect here, too. Not literally more niches or bigger market size overall, but more niches for smart-people-related things, and more market demand for the stuff smart people buy.
I want a smarter and longer lived population, and reject that playing slots to get more of those with sheer quantity is the only play here.
Yes, I think the reasonable objection is that “population growth” is only a one way to achieve the (selfishly) desired outcome, and that it would be bad to focus on it at the exclusion of everything else.
For example, you could also get more research by increasing average human IQ, whether by genetic engineering or some form of eugenics. (The eugenics doesn’t have to be coercive, we haven’t picked even the lowest hanging fruit of encouraging healthy young men with high IQ to donate more sperms.)
The existing smart humans probably also could be used much better. Education sucks; special education for gifted kids is a taboo at many places. Scientists waste a lot of time doing paperwork. Scientific articles are paywalled. Many people do bullshit jobs, because those pay well and sometimes you don’t have the skills necessary to start your own company. (Or maybe we could just open borders for people with IQ over 150.)
Basically, seeing all this inefficiency makes “we need to increase the population” sound like motivated reasoning.
*
That all said, maybe it is a sad truth that all these things are politically difficult to fix, and the population growth is after all the most likely way to actually get more research done.
I feel that you’re only paying attention to the “more geniuses and researchers” part and ignoring the parts about market size, better matching, more niches?
Also “focus on it at the exclusion of everything else” is a strawman, I’m not advocating that of course. Certainly increasing intelligence would be good (although we don’t know how to do that yet!) Better education would be great and I am a strong advocate of that. Same for better scientific institutions, etc.
I am not blaming you personally, but the Overton window contains the population growth and not much else.
Improving the population (genetically or by education) would have some effect here, too. Not literally more niches or bigger market size overall, but more niches for smart-people-related things, and more market demand for the stuff smart people buy.