[aucisson_masque]

> Immigration has lifted U.S. population growth to almost 1.2% a year, the highest since the early 1990s. Without it, the U.S. population would be growing 0.2% a year

Population growth is always announced as a great thing but is this really the case ? For instance, house price are increasing because more and more people wants it, it also prevent salary from increasing because there are always people without job looking take the poorest offer.

It's great for the country economy and the government but it's never good for it's population.

[Two4]

Your argument is in the wrong direction: enforcing a liveable federal minimum wage ensures that there's a reasonable bottom to how low you can bid on labour. The housing crisis, on the other hand, is a net supply restriction effect caused by real estate speculation and investment, rather than it being a commodity (it never will be a commodity, but I'd wager there's a real estate bubble pop coming soon)

[eddd-ddde]

At the end of the day the Earth's resources are very much finite. We simply can't have indefinite growth, so it doesn't make sense to use it as a metric.

[pacerier]

> finite

Sure, everything is finite, but 8 billion is too little. Earth can fit 8 trillion and more, all we need is more science.

[aucisson_masque]

That's a very optimistic way to think. But every new technology brings its set of failure and danger.

For instance energy: petrol -> pollution, nuclear energy-> tchernobil, danger currently in Ukraine with the war, ...

Food : fertilizer -> water pollution and eutrophication

Housing: more home -> less free soil to retain water, insane flooding.

And so on, and so on.

Anyway by the time we reach 8 trillion, a nuclear war surely would have already started and wiped us all

[pacerier]

> set of failure and danger

Then what you need is moar science. 10x, 100x, 999999

[Log_out_]

science is very much limited by human ability to not regress to violence when limited when h^n meets the l*r there be carnage without modifications .

[pacerier]

all we need is more science.. and religion

[eddd-ddde]

Maybe, but what's the point ? If science improves shouldn't we aim for less population?

Less people can keep up with more production. Less people means less impact on the environment. Less people means more nature. At least personally I rather have less people on the planet at any given moment.

[pacerier]

why production? environmental? nature? Who cares about these things more than caring about humans [and happiness thereof]?

Sure I want less people and more earth to myself too, but if everyone [overall] wants as many free kids as they can afford, how on earth are you going to end up with having less people?

A girl's maximum happiness is directly correlated with the number of children she has. regardless of how much free capital and brainwashing received

[eddd-ddde]

> A girl's maximum happiness is directly correlated with the number of children she has. regardless of how much free capital and brainwashing received

Wow that's one interesting statement. I've met many girls that rather not have any kids AT ALL. Are those statistical anomalies or something? Are you implying that being pregnant 100% of the time = ultimate happiness?

[pacerier]

Enforcing ubi ensures that there's a reasonable bottom to how low you can bid on labour.

Enforcing minimum wage however is problematic because it is an artificial level. It simply further creates two classes of people, the hired and the unhired.

[snapplebobapple]

Enforcing an understanfing of economics, motivation and thinking beyond a first order effect usually ensures people understand why ubi os a bad idea....

[pacerier]

There is more than enough science and tech capital for automation to allow ubi over a decade ago. Go ask larry page (cf bit.ly/3TiyI9r), but at the same time be careful who you talk to, for example if you get near Bill Gates he will start to brainwash you why medicine shouldn't be opensourced to africa like we did for code because La and Ti and Do Re Mi 10x-th order thinking.

But enforcing billionth-order thinking is not enough to learn basic raw psych and motivation. here put to you in simple words:

— As with every capital transfer 40 acres or otherwise, it is a bad idea if you are not on the receiving side, second-order thinking not actually needed.

[pacerier]

copying Scandi is not a bad idea