Hanson’s assumptions require extremely strong memetic stability, or at least high and consistent prevalence for high-fertility. Since fertility, at the relevant margin, seems principally memetic (rather than genetic), this seems unlikely, particularly if it entails a significant sacrifice of material well-being. If it doesn’t require a significant sacrifice of material well-being, then it will not likely coincide with falling standards of living. In other words, when it becomes clear that the next generation will be worse off than the current generation because there are too many people, it is very likely that anti-fertility memes and possibly laws will become prevalent. Insofar as people are mortal, significant changes in fertility and population can happen extremely quickly.
Edit: Downvotes are interesting, especially without counterargument. “His assumptions are wrong” seems like a legit criticism.
In other words, when it becomes clear that the next generation will be worse off than the current generation because there are too many people, it is very likely that anti-fertility memes and possibly laws will become prevalent.
I don’t know about laws, but I don’t see why “high fertility decreases happiness of humans” necessarily implies “low-fertility–causing memes have a reproductive advantage”. Nor why that advantage would shadow that of other memes.
Insofar as people are mortal, significant changes in fertility and population can happen extremely quickly.
Local (time-wise) changes can be quick and large in any direction, true, but I thought the argument was that as long as fitness selection works, in the long term, it always finally pushes them back towards the Malthusian limit.
So even in an extremely sane and hedonistic population (say, immortals who mostly never choose to reproduce), as long as some inheritable trait (genes, memes or something else) [a] increases the likeliness of reproduction relative to the average and [b] varies among the population, eventually individuals with that trait will dominate because… well, they’re the only ones who reproduce.
(Of course, if society can perfectly control all such factors, then the problem disappears. It’s just that it doesn’t seem possible even in theory.)
Also: Nothing. We’ll be fine.
Hanson’s assumptions require extremely strong memetic stability, or at least high and consistent prevalence for high-fertility. Since fertility, at the relevant margin, seems principally memetic (rather than genetic), this seems unlikely, particularly if it entails a significant sacrifice of material well-being. If it doesn’t require a significant sacrifice of material well-being, then it will not likely coincide with falling standards of living. In other words, when it becomes clear that the next generation will be worse off than the current generation because there are too many people, it is very likely that anti-fertility memes and possibly laws will become prevalent. Insofar as people are mortal, significant changes in fertility and population can happen extremely quickly.
Edit: Downvotes are interesting, especially without counterargument. “His assumptions are wrong” seems like a legit criticism.
I don’t know about laws, but I don’t see why “high fertility decreases happiness of humans” necessarily implies “low-fertility–causing memes have a reproductive advantage”. Nor why that advantage would shadow that of other memes.
Local (time-wise) changes can be quick and large in any direction, true, but I thought the argument was that as long as fitness selection works, in the long term, it always finally pushes them back towards the Malthusian limit.
So even in an extremely sane and hedonistic population (say, immortals who mostly never choose to reproduce), as long as some inheritable trait (genes, memes or something else) [a] increases the likeliness of reproduction relative to the average and [b] varies among the population, eventually individuals with that trait will dominate because… well, they’re the only ones who reproduce.
(Of course, if society can perfectly control all such factors, then the problem disappears. It’s just that it doesn’t seem possible even in theory.)