[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]

Since when did she rather be childless? At birth? (Although girls are notorious at lying to themselves, wouldn't hurt to ask.)

Verily I say thee, it started when she realized how the world outside eden works. Scarcity, money, capitalism, food bills, rent bills, hospital bills, nanny bills, university bills, oh my, if you have as many kids as you want when will you have the time to yourself to ever rest and drink some water?

But you can go to this girl who ''rather not have any kids at all'' and see for yourself that's not true. All you need is to bring along $100 bill printouts equal to fortune-ten market cap to match, or buy them from Iran if she is the numismatic type. Go ask her if you have all this money in the world do you want kids? Then before she replies, flush out the cash and say It's all yours! Not if! Not when! You are Naow a trillionaire! It's all yours! Do you want kids?!

Yepp, now you're seeing. Let me know how many kids she wants. (Certainly it'll be age dependant, with those nearing menopause being sourgraped.)

With replacement rate decreasing from 2.1, even if she is the oddball type that wants only two kids, as long as for every billion of her there's someone who wants more, then we are all set. on the path to 8 trillion and more.

Of course if all else fails, don't say I didn't warn you, that this being earth not eden there will be folks who are actually mental and within a mere dozen-decade uncurable.

Being pregnant is not the point, like how working out is not the point. (These are costs not results.) While it can be negative, it's small compared to its epic takeaway.

[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