125 points

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jump over the paywall click: https://archive.is/8WWq2

permalink
report
reply
14 points
*

Link didn’t work for me but suck such a nice wording

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

suck a nice wording

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I love to suck nice wordings

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Weird, just checked and it still works for me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It works for me now, guess it was just down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I guess the server is crushed. I don’t understand modern webpage development and web servers at all. 25 years ago I hosted 10,000 simultaneous connections on 4 megabit line (part of a t3) and a Pentium 3 server. It was fast.

The link is text with a picture. It should be a couple dozen kilobytes. A 10 year old PC on a home 100mbs Internet service should handle hundreds of simultaneous connections.

permalink
report
parent
reply
124 points

Does population decline worry you?

I mean, it’s super important. The population of all of the places we love is shrinking. In 50 years, 30 years, you’ll have half as many people in places that you love. Society will collapse. We have to solve it. It’s very critical.

Uhhh…what? There are a handful of countries with recent population decline, but most of the world is still growing even if growth rates are slowing. I’ve never seen any credible projections of catastrophic population decline.

permalink
report
reply
49 points

Sure, but what if those countries are the only places I love tho?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

This is sounding close to replacement theory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Replacement theory has a kernel of truth - more brown people are being born than white people.

It’s just not in any way a problem. Let the brown people immigrate to white countries. Boom, population crisis solved.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yeah it’s a bit of a hyperbole, but the rate is what’s important. By the time we hit worldwide negative growth rates (which is projected to happen this century), it’s going to be way too late to have a discussion about whether or not that’s a good thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

A good thing for some, a bad thing for others. Good for the environment, most likely. But we’re going to have to extensively reorganize the workforce.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Experts have generally agreed that any reduction in population size will come far too late to help with the current climate crisis. We’re either going to hit sustainability with our current population or die in the process.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman, and there are about 100 countries under that rate. Yes, their populations are still growing, but much of that is through extension of life expectancy and immigration (which requires a higher birth rate somewhere else, lest that other places start seeing shrinking population).

It’s not an immediate crisis, but it is turning into a problem that should be addressed soon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

In essence, when the growth rate slows to a certain point, people are dying faster than they’re being replaced, and the trend can only continue unless everyone starts having 10 kids.

It’s a matter of job replacement. Maybe AI will partly help, or maybe we’ll open our borders so immigrants can come end masse and do all the jobs we don’t have enough people for, but unless extreme measures are taken once it gets to that point, civilization as we know it will collapse.

I’m by no means pro-forced birth. But birth rate decline is a serious issue.

The U.S. population grew at the slowest pace in history in 2021, according to census data released last week. That news sounds extreme, but it’s on trend. First came 2020, which saw one of the lowest U.S. population-growth rates ever. And now we have 2021 officially setting the all-time record.

U.S. growth didn’t slowly fade away: It slipped, and slipped, and then fell off a cliff. The 2010s were already demographically stagnant; every year from 2011 to 2017, the U.S. grew by only 2 million people. In 2020, the U.S. grew by just 1.1 million. Last year, we added only 393,000 people.

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/03/american-population-growth-rate-slow/629392/

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

In essence, when the growth rate slows to a certain point, people are dying faster than they’re being replaced, and the trend can only continue unless everyone starts having 10 kids.

Growth is growth. It’s not tracking only births, it’s tracking births against deaths. Population decline is people dying faster than they’re being replaced, but even “very slow growth” would still mean the population is increasing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

There are countries that decline in population even though they try to offset it with immigration, Japan is ahead of everyone in that.

But every time someone talks about the decline in population they usually aren’t afraid of people going extinct, they are afraid of working hands supply going low imo 🌚

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I’m by no means pro-forced birth. But birth rate decline is a serious issue.

Yeah, it matters to capitalists who need an inexhaustible supply of exploitable workers.

For regular folk, it’s not a problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

As long as you either have many tens of millions, or you don’t care about electricity, water, food, and you’re extremely physically isolated and/or hidden very well and armed to the teeth, it shouldn’t affect you much.

For the rest of us it’s something to worry about. Infrastructure needs a lot of trained people to operate. Once the train gets going it doesn’t stop, and that means as time goes on it gets worse and worse until it reaches a point of stability some X years after collapse. And you won’t be able to freely and adaquetely hunt/pick your food if you’re anywhere near a city until point X, because everyone else will be doing the same. Also some idiots will be bathing in the only still good stream near you with whatever leftover chemicals they can find.

Your country can open the immigration floodgates and become a country without borders (i.e. become whatever country is currently your neighbor) but that comes with similar problems listed above.

So as you can see, it’s not an issue for a small privileged few. For the rest of us, its a big fucking deal. I would encourage you to look into it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Not really, it’s a matter of replacement. Plus we need a lot more people if we’re going to become a multi-planet species for survival. Nothing to do really with capitalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

If only there were people desperate for a better life here, alive now, perhaps in a neighboring country or even entire other continent bordering the states.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

but unless extreme measures are taken once it gets to that point, civilization as we know it will collapse.

Population decline is a good thing. Raising a child requires more resources than caring for elderly. When the elderly die, that frees up even more land and resources for the next generation.

The Black Plague caused the Renaissance. WW2 killed almost exclusively all the healthiest and most productive workers at the prime of their working lives. The result was the survivors experienced unprecedented wealth for a generation.

When the population declines such that a person with a high school diploma can once again own a home and support a family of 4, the population will increase again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I agree that a Phoenix will rise from the ashes, but make no mistake, there will be many ashes, you and I and most of us posting here likely included.

But we are long overdue for a reset. Maybe this time we can just skip the internet infrastructure during rebuild, and develop near-peer networks instead.

permalink
report
parent
reply
112 points

I’m having trouble trusting anyone with no scientific background (i.e. no PhD), no published journal articles, and no ethical committee oversight to proceed with a complex problem such as this one.

permalink
report
reply
31 points

Theranos : Evolution

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Theranos: Genetic Boogaloo.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

I would not blindly trust those people either, if they are human they are corruptible as well.

Looking at certain ‘scientific background’ people they act just like politicians, if you take the time to look into them and their activities.

I am just saying to be criticial and do not treat them like celebrity worship status, because I have done that mistake with politicians as well.

We must stay criticial of people in power and with money/influence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Science IS political, at all levels. You can’t compete without funding and your institutions will pressure you to perform a certain way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Sadly, I agree. Scientific background does not a good person make. It’s just mostly (not always) required to solve problems of this level of complexity.

I’m mostly concerned because of no independent ethical committee oversight which is standard in breaking ground on new research and procedures and is widely practiced in medicine and psychology that I know of. I can’t know if this is a fraud, it’s not my field, but the lack of any public information on their groundbreaking procedure based in science is also quite concerning.

This article is basically promotional material.

permalink
report
parent
reply
96 points

As long as you don’t use the word eugenics explicitly apparently you can sell anyone on anything.

permalink
report
reply
28 points

No they acknowledge that the technology could be used that way. But there’s a lot of actual medical problems we can catch this way. Imagine you carry the Huntington’s gene. How much would you pay to make sure you don’t pass that down to your kids?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Imagine you carry the Huntington’s gene. How much would you pay to make sure you don’t pass that down to your kids?

Nothing. That’s what health insurance is for. Also practically noone has any issues with preimplantation diagnostics when it comes to things that are clearly genetic diseases, what rubs people the wrong way is a) selecting by bullshit criteria, e.g. sex, eye colour, curliness of hair, whatever, b) making designer babies the default at the expanse of erm wild ones, worst of all, c) the combination.

And ethics aside the arguments should be obvious it’s also a bad idea from the POV of the honest eugenicist: Humanity’s genetic diversity is already low as it is it would be fatal to allow things like fashions to narrow it down even more.

Humanity is already shaping its own selection criteria, we might need to start doing something extra to avoid evolving ourselves into a corner by non-PID means. Random example: C-Sections. No mother or baby should die in childbirth, yet, the selective pressure towards more uncomplicated births getting removed might, over many many many generations, leave us with very few women who would survive a natural birth which doesn’t sound like a good situation for a species to be in, to be reliant on technology to even reproduce. Thus is might become prudent to artificially select for e.g. wide-hip genes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Yeah, but nobody here is suggesting racial criteria. This article is specifically about screening for health issues. Reading more into it, it seems like they’ve paired big data with genetic screening to lay odds on health problems that aren’t just a single gene going the wrong way.

Edit to add, there’s no such thing as an ethical Eugenicist. The theory was based on racism and sterilizing “undesirables”. This isn’t Eugenics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

It’s still eugenics, you just used more words to describe it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Eugenics isn’t inherently bad, but humans suck and will make it bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
*

No. Eugenics is race theory as much as it’s anything scientific. It was about making sure the “correct” races had children. I don’t know what the name for this is in science but Eugenics isn’t about making kids healthier, it’s about making them whiter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

They literally say “Word beginning with ‘eu’ and ends with ‘genics’” inside the article pimping them out.

With a sprinkling of ‘Orchid doesn’t like us to use that word’ as if ‘Nazis do not like to be called Nazis’ is a valid complaint.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points
*

Gene filtering for IVF babies… gattaca

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Glad I wasn’t the only one who thought of that

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 16K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 591K

    Comments