What's your estimation for the minimum size of global population required for preserving modern civilization with advanced technology and medicine, and even progressing further?

Submitted by Evgeneey t3_10wtl8l in Futurology

First of all, please, sorry for my English.

It's widely discussed, specifically in the "green discourse", both in mainstream media and specialized themed platforms - what is the biggest human population our planet could sustain, feed, provide for life of quality? But I have a bit rarer, reversed question: what's the mininimum population required for preserving all our knowledge, technology, and even progressing further, doing research and implementing results. The world is currently inhabited by some >8 billion souls, but what fraction is required to sustain agriculture and feed the remaining humanity, mining, industry, life professions - doctors and stomatologists to care for our health, but most and for all - progress, science, technology advancement. It's not the question about: what percent of human being we can "evaporate" spontaneously if we want ther remaining to effectively survive, but: what is the number of humans, if carefully selected using, mainly, their education and skills could retain our civilization and move forward. Thank you and once again, sorry for my English. It's not even my second language, but I'm trying to do the best I can in providing understandable communication.

67

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

real-duncan t1_j7oz4rt wrote

Not sure this is a minimum but a few years back the consensus seemed to be that a population of 2 billion would ensure the current arrangements of world trade etc and allow a livable planet going forward.

2 billion was the population in World War 2 so seems to be plenty for rapid technological advancement given the leaps achieved in the 30s, 40s, 50s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

46

Surur t1_j7ph1ol wrote

> a population of 2 billion would ensure the current arrangements of world trade etc and allow a livable planet going forward.

There are two issues with this. 2 billion people living like Americans would actually doom the world faster.

Secondly, like the problem with the Thanos solution, 2 billion now would mean 8 billion in 80 years if the population boomed like post-WW2.

9

metarinka t1_j7qaah7 wrote

We currently have the inverse problem in nearly every western country (unless propped up by immigration). So I we may be fighting the other problem in an ideal world of having to constantly encourage people to have at least 2.1 kids to match rate of replacement.

18

real-duncan t1_j7rhlwe wrote

While it’s not certain we are probably looking at a declining population starting this century or the next.

This is not a “problem”. It’s the cure. However it does mean the end of capitalism as we know it.

The response from most economists is trying to find ways to keep the population growing which is a strategy of doom.

What we need is to face facts face on and come up with something to replace a system that is about to stop working.

7

Surur t1_j7ritum wrote

See, if you kill 3/4 of the people, but keep your property intact, you can have a new cycle of growth where you end up even richer!

3

real-duncan t1_j7rkz1e wrote

Yep. But that’s not the future being predicted in these models.

The expected future is a peak at 12, 16, or 20 billion (depending on assumptions) and then a demographic decline for a century or two. No sudden crash, just below replacement birth rates becoming the norm.

During those centuries of declining population the economics we’ve been using for the last 300 (?) years won’t work.

Working on a response to this predicted new world should be an urgent area of huge funding and interest. Instead Japan is announcing trying to turn around there birth rates hoping the future isn’t coming.

Interesting times ahead.

4

metarinka t1_j7spv2t wrote

The closest model we have is what happened during the plague when death's caused a labor shortage. Which drives up the price of labor, which is a good thing. OR we are going to find it also races to create more automation as the ROI on a $400K robot is easier when a google employee makes $400K a year than when a McDonald's employee makes $20K a year.

1

Wasabi_Wei t1_j7t5ay7 wrote

You realize that the crown passed a law to prevent labor capitalizing on the market after the plague, right? Causing the Peasant Revolt in 1381. When gains happen to favor the rich, it's the market at work. When workers get paid, laws get passed to protect the rich. That is history, still happening.

3

real-duncan t1_j7ss2pg wrote

It’s not in any way a relevant comparison.

The Black Death was a sudden decline.

This will be a slow motion demographic move through a series of unusual states of population mix as the various cadres go through the stages of their lives.

Your answers are solving some of the wrong problems.

When everyone knows there will be less consumers next year and even less in a decade and so forth what is the incentive for future investment? Using the current assumptions means the whole system collapses. So the assumptions must change. No amount of focusing on robots and that side of things will address these issues.

Will the robots change things as you suggest and do we need to work on preparing for that? Yes. Plenty of interesting thought work to do as you suggest.

Is that enough to deal with a downward demand curve being the norm for centuries? No.

2

metarinka t1_j7sojjm wrote

I don't disagree, the OP was asking about preservering modern society.

The issue I was trying to highlight, it's not just people it's young productive people. China, Japan, Korea they are ALREADY in a population crisis. Of having aging demographics of non-productive seniors who require resources (and care etc). The US has a deficit too, it's just masked by immigration. The last number I read was that China needs 10 Million Imigrants a year under the age 40 just to keep it's current growth, but it has never had inflow immigration and they will run out of rural under developed areas to tap.

So I don't think seeing the world population decrease is itself a bad thing, but we really don't have an economic framework or model on what to do when we end up with upside-down demographics of more and more resources needed for elder care and fewer and fewer used to sustain let alone grow the economy. In a more egalitarian system maybe all this automation would help us hit a partial post-work society. In our current capital accumulation society, the billionaires will continue to own more even as the pie starts to shrink. The two easiest knobs to turn will be to raise the retirement age, lower the work start age or if you are grim-dark... let old people die or live in poverty.

And if 3rd world dictators have taught us anything, they won't care what size the pie is or how people feel as long as they (and the billionaires) continue to get to own 95% of it because they'll still be flying private jets, owning large yatchs and having parties at the French palace everyday.

2

LockeClone t1_j7t94ry wrote

>However it does mean the end of capitalism as we know it.

Meh... The end of capitalism 1.2 for capitalism 1.3 maybe...

"Capitalism" is such a huge term. You basically can't have markets without someone having a credible cause to name it capitalism unless you pass a a very grey threshold of command and control that very few nations have even attempted in the past 100 years.

2

real-duncan t1_j7td1li wrote

There will be less consumers next year. There will be less again the year after that. That continues for about a century.

That means a declining demand curve for a century.

How are you going to finance something with a guaranteed reduction in return? Punch that assumption into a bank computer program and see what loan you can raise.

Every year you’ll need less housing, less white goods, less food, etc.

Whose going to hire people or buy robots when the demand for what you produce is certain to be lower in the future than now.

If you don’t think that requires a different economic model than the current one I suspect you haven’t thought about it carefully enough.

Be clear I am not saying “no more capitalism” just not capitalism as it is as a minimum. I don’t believe there is a command and control model built on the assumption of a century long declining demand curve. The attempts at socialism I know of have all assumed a growing demand curve for their modeling.

I’m not saying I know what the answer is. I’m just hoping groups of people smarter than me are getting ready, and I currently doubt they are.

3

Miserly_Bastard t1_j89o2l7 wrote

Economists are people who study the economy in whatever form it manifests and are generally neutral in their professional capacity, and ordinary human beings otherwise, meaning that some are very opinionated one way or another.

Politicians and special interests only listen to economists when it furthers the politicians' agendas. Those agendas seldom intersect with a free and competitive market and are much much more likely to have something to do with rent-seeking behaviors. This phenomenon seems to occur in many human populations, regardless of whatever labels are used to describe their politico-economic system.

If economists seem (to you) to be arguing for population growth, there are a few possibilities. One is that you are confounding legitimate prognostications that seem negative for an economist's opinion or recommendation. It is entirely possible to hold a pessimistic view of future economic measures of human or institutional well-being with population declines and also hold even more pessimistic views of coerced population growth. Also, if it seems that they aren't placing enough value on various environmental factors, read their actual academic work, get in the weeds, and there's a good chance that they've provided some limiting assumptions that acknowledge the inherent challenge of doing so; and understand that they lack the omnipotency and powers of communication to do and explain literally everything, including the value of moral sentiments. Finally, ask yourself whether you are reading a representative sample of the work of academic economists or are reading the most sensational or cherry-picked or selectively-abstracted economic articles written by non-economists, or worse, politically-motivated third parties that don't actually care about truth as long as it fits their narrative.

Most economists of a certain age, even when they've had professional success, still feel basically powerless. These are the people that are best equipped to come up with new systems. But that's not what is in demand...at all.

TLDR; economists are people like any other social scientists. Blaming an entire academic discipline is anti-science. Don't be that guy. It's not cool. Look at who's actually getting rich if you want to trace the source of our society's problems. Not scientists.

0

real-duncan t1_j8atnmi wrote

Found the disillusioned economist.

Saying “some dogs shit on my lawn” does not communicate to anyone without a chip on their shoulder that I am suggesting the dogs are ‘to blame’ for that and especially not that I am blaming every dog in the world.

You have invented a lot of stuff I never said and never thought. I am not responsible for what exists in your head and not in mine. You are having a conversation with yourself.

1

Miserly_Bastard t1_j8brvrs wrote

You didn't say that some dogs shit on your lawn. You blamed capitalism and economists without qualification.

But capitalism also isn't to an economist what shit is to dogs. Dogs are to biologists what the American variety of capitalism is to economists, one species of many. Parasites found in dog shit that use that shit as a medium to facilitate further spread are to dogs what rent seekers are to American capitalism. Those parasites are worthy of study and are studied by economists. Sometimes passionately and more often dispassionately.

As to it being on your lawn, well that's where the analogy sort of breaks down. The alternative to dogs may be cats or bears or nothing. An economist would probably inquire as to the utility of your yard itself and contrast it with zero lot line housing. Maybe the lawn itself is the dog shit?

0

real-duncan t1_j8bshlp wrote

I didn’t blame anything.

Reading comprehension is not strong in your family is it?

You’re reading things that are not there and wanting me to defend things that only exist in your head.

You are having a conversation with yourself. You don’t need anyone else involved.

r/shitamericanssay in assuming capitalism is an “American” thing. So embarrassing!

1

whooops-- t1_j7r44yw wrote

I’m always curious how do u guys think of immigrants

2

miharuza t1_j7rbmpl wrote

depends where they came from, how they came, what theyre doing now (mostly the last thing)

1

whooops-- t1_j7rc719 wrote

Legally come through studying or work. From China or other Asian countries like Taiwan Japan.

1

DrMaybeDead t1_j7ry8eh wrote

Most people in western countries are accepting of immigrants. A good portion of people move for work within countries between cities. There's always some problems but the main thing is acclimating to the climate and then the culture. Know the areas culture to understand a little more context on how they feel about it. The two reasons you gave usually provide the best social structure for someone to come over and guide the person.

2

whooops-- t1_j7ryp06 wrote

I wish I could emigrate through studying in the us. But it’s way too hard... and in the predictable future, due to the intense relationship between ccp and the us, it may get harder to emigrate. Sigh...

1

metarinka t1_j7tssn0 wrote

I'm all for it. Both my parents were immigrants my wife's family is immigrants. I grew up in Michigan with a huge Muslim immigrant population. It's all good.

Unfortunately immigrants are an easy "other" and big target for the "they took our jobs" or "my neighborhood used to be for me". Crowd.

I don't pretend to have an answer for that problem because it's an emotional and healing problem not a political a or statistical problem.

We see Korea and Japan literally collapsing rather than let in more immigrants so that's a clue on how stuck in their ways people are.

Also I'm way more progressive than most. for most of human history borders were open and people just went where they wanted. it's only this last 80ish years we're the idea is a border should always be perpetually closed. Which i think is very anti human and terrible economically.

1

MrCrash t1_j7qo17b wrote

Reliable birth control pills weren't commercially available until the 1960s. We are unlikely to see a population boom like that again.

11

Consensuseur t1_j7psus8 wrote

You mean how many of us could the oligarchy kill off before it became an inconvenience to them?

29

Wipperwill1 t1_j7q6caw wrote

Any by kill off you mean starve, de-house and let die of curable diseases?

15

TJT1970 t1_j7ra3yh wrote

Or vaccinate

−2

Wipperwill1 t1_j7rv6iv wrote

Look at all those millions of people dropping dead to vaccinations.

Oh wait! There aren't any. I know 30-40 people personally that got the vaccine that are just fine. The only people I know that died, did it before the vaccine was available.

1

TJT1970 t1_j7u12bx wrote

Oh so they aren't any side effects or fatalities associated with the vaccine? Hmmm ok.

1

rogert2 t1_j7r3jq5 wrote

Relevant: The wealthy are plotting to leave us behind

Accurate summary by a redditor:

> people who were asked by billionaires to go to a meeting and advise them on what to do to keep staff loyal in their bunkers when money becomes worthless

Supporting quotes from the source:

> I got invited to a super-deluxe private resort to deliver a keynote speech... it was by far the largest fee I had ever been offered for a talk > > I just sat there at a plain round table as my audience was brought to me: five super-wealthy guys... from the upper echelon of the hedge fund world > > Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked, “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” > > This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? > > Taking their cue from Elon Musk..., Peter Thiel..., or Sam Altman and Ray Kurzweil..., they were preparing for... insulating themselves from a very real and present danger of climate change, rising sea levels, mass migrations, global pandemics, nativist panic, and resource depletion. For them, the future of technology is really about just one thing: escape.

8

Surur t1_j7rimel wrote

> “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?”

The answer - AI

6

rogert2 t1_j7ssv1l wrote

You're going to have to explain that a little more.

It seems that if AI is capable of keeping human soldiers in line, it's probably also capable of simply replacing humans soldiers with armed version of the Boston Dynamics robots.

2

Surur t1_j7tfrg3 wrote

Replacement is obviously the most secure.

1

mhornberger t1_j7rvw8m wrote

I suspect sub-replacement and in some cases still-declining fertility rates are a more likely issue. Though I think it'll be a long time before that poses any threat of societal collapse. Even assuming we don't incrementally get closer to a post-scarcity economy.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-change-in-the-number-of-children-women-have

2

Consensuseur t1_j7t17bp wrote

I think this is right. I wish our economy was scored more on improvements in efficiency and less on limitless growth. Lower growth and consumption rates are at odds with our indexes of what we call economic health. How to untangle these things?

1

mhornberger t1_j7t1jvc wrote

I don't know what "limitless growth" means, honestly. Growth in what? You can have economic growth with a plateaued or even declining population. We were never going to have infinite people, infinite energy use, infinite land use, infinite food consumption, whatever.

I don't think people are going to embrace austerity voluntarily. Emissions are already declining in many rich countries, anyway. India, China etc remaining poor was never going to be our plan. Nor are Americans or Europeans going to want to live like a poor person in India in 1980. People like wealth. Comfort, convenience, status goods, travel, a varied diet, etc.

2

Consensuseur t1_j7t2a6b wrote

Well, hopefully our population can plateau and our consumption can be achieved with less consequence sooner rather than later.

1

MrGate t1_j7oxpg4 wrote

i feel like the georgia guidestones already said this. whoever had these built spent a lot of money to do so, and most likely probably had a think tank or something to figure out the estimated number of people etc.

i mean lets be honest, for advanced tech per say, not a lot of the population contributes to it. so if you were able to pick and choose who to keep, im sure you could pick enough smart people, enough laborors, and enough people who specialize in medicine etc to continue on humanity in the way it is today!

12

strvgglecity t1_j7q376c wrote

Those people would have to be farmers to survive if there were no farmers. Or they'd have to be miners if there were no miners. Or clothing makers. Or waste disposal.

The only reason anyone can pursue technology is because all other needs are already provided for.

9

MrGate t1_j7q6vrb wrote

obv some would need to be farmers etc. but for example, with the tech and advancments we made, you dont nearly need as many people running farms as you use to.

and over time a lot of things like this could be automated by machines even more

5

[deleted] t1_j7rw718 wrote

We farm, and I work in Tech with a good Internet connection. AI can't go out and repair lines though. It's no where close. The real shitter is we're building battle bots before we're building infrastructure bots.

This will put the minimum tipping point population much higher. Also, there have been doomsayers since forever making the same claims and every time there's a new new discovery that makes that problem vanish.

Right now I see the rich trying to shift the food supply and the power and money that comes with away from the cattlemen into their own favor.

​

To which I I say, I will first eat the people that demand I eat the bugs.

1

socialcommentary2000 t1_j7q9tkr wrote

>i mean lets be honest, for advanced tech per say, not a lot of the population contributes to it.

This is so utterly and completely wrong, it's sort of mind bending.

The stupid boxed set of silverware from the local Bed Bath and Beyond (Pre-bankruptcy) involves multiple cross globe border crossings by transport to bring to that silly store shelf. The complexity only goes up from there.

People massively underestimate just how many people come into play in modern supply chains.

7

wansuitree t1_j7p4l8c wrote

That's just the ideal population with a very sick and disgusting rationale and ideology behind it.

A couple of million would probably be enough to continue and progress further.

4

whooops-- t1_j7r53sb wrote

Umm the modern society need a huge population to maintain and also all our arts and literature achievements are based on the society. If you purposely eliminate population, the science and arts based on that would decline.

1

Surur t1_j7p6cja wrote

While you can keep going with fewer, the diversity of your economy would be lower and your progress slower.

For example I suspect you would have a lot fewer exotic fruit in your diet with 2 billion people. In the same way you will have fewer people researching the various types of batteries, and slower improvement over time.

The service economy is the part of the economy which is all about people helping each other, so with fewer people would mean fewer needed but again expect less diversity in the services that are available to you.

Same with manufacturing - a smaller population would have a less diverse range of products.

Some projects which are affordable in a large economy would not be affordable in a small economy, for example a space elevator which costs 5% of the world economy may be affordable, but one which was 30% would not be.

So for this question:

> what's the minimum population required for preserving all our knowledge, technology, and even progressing further, doing research and implementing results.

Probably not that many, but don't expect life to be the same qualitatively, and don't expect research to progress half as fast.

5

Tnuvu t1_j7p8ea5 wrote

the question is never about numbers, its about quality. Unfortunately we live in a pretty petty infested corupted world where if you were to put those 500.000 on paper your gonna have an Elysium like world, where the wealthy get to live while they kill you off or inhibit your progress significantly

We are already doing that right now, where there sooo much cheap talk about saving the planet and all that, yet 270 personal jets + helicopters flee to davos just to stroke the egos of everyone in that 1% with very few exceptions

Meanwhile we block the usage of fosil fuels for developing countries, cause hey, we got our bellies full by doing that, fk the rest of you peasants. simply disgusting

5

wagner56 t1_j7p39nr wrote

there are some basic metrics about genetic diversity for a stable population

4

AccomplishedBerry625 t1_j7pfo28 wrote

It’s only 132 currently unrelated people to meet the biological requirement for genetic diversity.

Obviously you couldn’t run ‘modern society’ and or ‘industry’, ‘medicine’, etc., but humanity could survive with that small of a population.

7

wagner56 t1_j7pjmei wrote

thts a minimum with no redundancy

youd want at least a 1000% redundancy

a look at all the supply chains and the specialists to maintain them might be a start

economy of scale comes into the modern sustaining the high tech and if you chop that out they are no longer viable

likewise with enough scale cuts basics start failing as well

5

tealcosmo t1_j7qigi9 wrote

Who would all die within a few years because of bad weather.

1

aeusoes1 t1_j7p9i6e wrote

I wouldn't be surprised if, with automation, you could shrink down to a population of less than 100 million. There would need to be a higher percentage of the population in STEM fields to get appreciable levels of scientific advancement, but it could be doable.

4

Wipperwill1 t1_j7q6vsv wrote

As has been said, innovation would slow as the population declined but I think AI, robotics, and improved lifespan/health could make up for a bigger population. Hell, if you go far enough, immortal people (nano/organic) wouldn't need much in the way of support.

2

Rhueh t1_j7q3wh9 wrote

I was going to say 100 million, based on Arthur C. Clarke estimate from many years ago. (Which turns out to have been based on an analysis by Fred Hoyle, which I didn't know before today.) But my memory is obviously quite faulty because the Clarke/Hoyle number was 100 thousand, not 100 million! That seems low to me, but the number can certainly be much lower than today's population, once our technology is sufficiently advanced.

4

strvgglecity t1_j7qhjet wrote

Once technology is self sustaining, the answer becomes 0. No humans will be needed for earth creatures to pursue scientific discovery.

2

Rhueh t1_j7qi90p wrote

Hm... I suppose it all hinges on what someone means by "preserving modern civilization." Does civilization being completely taken over by machines constitute "preserving" it? I can see a case either way.

But, yes, assuming we allow a civilization of machines to be consistent with "preserving modern civilization" then, you're right, the answer to the exact question asked would be zero.

1

strvgglecity t1_j7qj3qm wrote

Yea. If by "civilization" they mean an assortment of creatures producing goods and ideas, consuming resources, altering ecosystems and reproducing, then humans aren't required at all.

1

Rhueh t1_j858n1q wrote

Ironically, from an economic perspective a machine civilization has a big problem: Machines are far better at creating than they are at consuming. A machine civilization might well develop into a single machine that can maintain itself. What use would a second machine be?

2

Lost_Jeweler t1_j7pcvpi wrote

In my opinion you are making a lot of mistakes in your logic. I think what history has shown us it's what breeds advancement and innovation is competition (and war, the ultimate competition).

Corruption and stagnation come from stability. There is a reason why humanity essentially stalled in progress for thousands of years, then in the last 200 has advanced spectacularly. With less people you didn't have as much competition so kings and queens could rule absolutely stopping all advancement even if they wanted it.

More people means more competition, means more ideas, means progress, and generally means better quality of life.

3

Lost_Jeweler t1_j7peac2 wrote

Additionally, many times innovation comes from diversity. Diversity of background. Diversity of thought. Diversity of opinions. Carefully selecting people, culture, or thoughts is a great way to cause additional stagnation.

3

AE_WILLIAMS t1_j7py4oq wrote

Humans could go interplanetary, create generation ships, or even develop FTL and go interstellar if they would devote as much time and energy into these things as they currently do going to war with each other or hoarding resources.

The nearby asteroids are awash with mineral riches, the Moon has water, and it may be possible to terraform Mars and Venus. The outer worlds have tons of moons that may be able to support robotic manufacturing for materials that can be used for space stations.

The construction of even ONE space elevator would catapult the industry to new levels of experimental learning.

So, ultimately, it's not about population control, or anything other than just discarding outdated ways of being 'ruled.' Get rid of archaic constructs like monarchies, dictatorships, republics and democracies and get serious about uniting humanity in a worthwhile endeavor.

3

Vividus8 t1_j7q17ke wrote

1 or 2 billion should be good. Progress for the sake of progress isn't progress at all.

2

DWright_5 t1_j7qag6d wrote

You’re looking to kill everybody off who’s not performing an extremely valuable function? Sounds like you might be saying something like that

2

babyyodaisamazing98 t1_j7qsej0 wrote

I think we can estimate an upper bound pretty easy. North America for instance, particularly the USA currently produces enough food, water, and oil to fuel its whole society. It also has the ability to do all the manufacturing needed for modern society even if some of it is currently run cheaper in other countries. Outside of a few resources that are more easily acquired elsewhere it could be a pretty self contained country. It already produces more than half of the total research papers and R&D in the world.

You could easily eliminate the rest of the worlds population and still maintain the same standard of living with a few adjustments. So I’d put the upper bound at the current US population of about 300,000,000 people.

Now could you go lower than that? Probably. You wouldn’t need anyone over the age of 70 to keep the country going, so kill everyone over 70 and reduce that number by 60 million to 240 million.

You obviously need workers and children so no chance for reduction there.

The bottom 10% ish of the population is likely a net drain so eliminate another 40 million.

That puts us at 200,000,000 people left without a huge loss of function.

I don’t think you could go much lower without impacting luxury high end living.

So I’ll say 200,000,000 is about as low as you could go.

2

DxLaughRiot t1_j7r2ndu wrote

If you’re looking for a number, I don’t think anyone can give you something reliable, because the important factors involved here are constantly changing.

What you’re asking is generally “what is the minimum number of people required to keep society functioning well”. You kind of define “functioning well” as keeping our industries running as well as progressing, keeping our knowledge preserved, solving major issues like disease/natural disasters, etc. If I bucket each of the groups of people required to tackle these problems into something we call “an industry”, you could naively say it’s a function of “number of critical industries required for society to operate well” (call this NCI for Number of Critical Industries) multiplied by the minimum number of people required to work those industries (call this MRW for minimum required workers) and boom you’re good. The answer is NCI * MRW.

But this doesn’t really work for a number of reasons. Here’s just a few:

  • For NCI, you’d need to explicitly define what industries are “critical” and that will vary from person to person. The number will probably shift pretty dramatically over time as the world environment changes or new problems crop up
  • The MRW will be different for Critical Industry as every industry should require different amounts of people to work it. This means you should calculate it on an industry by industry basis
  • The MRW will decrease over time as new technology and practices give way to automation in each industry. So the MRW on an industry by industry basis will be changing constantly
  • The size of required industries will change depending on the total number of people allowed by this society right? So as soon as you decide “ok we’ll need to add another indistry that will require 10000 more people” those new people now need food, shelter, electricity, and transportation which means some of those industries now need to grow. Any change effects every other industry.
  • We can never predict what things will cause changes to the NCI. You might consider car manufacturing a critical industry, but one day we may develop teleportation and suddenly that industry will not be needed anymore

There are so many factors here that are just impossible to account for as well as totally subjective. I don’t think people currently can estimate a minimum work force required for one industry (i.e how many teachers do we really need? Doctors? Scientists?) let alone make a good estimate on a societal or global scale.

Honestly whatever question you’re asking seems too abstract/impossible to model to ever really be super helpful.

Given that - idk let’s say 1 billion people

2

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_j7rqt2c wrote

It depends on how technologically advanced the society is and how sociologically advanced the people in question are.

Can 8 billion cavemen sustain modern civilization? No, they are cavemen.

How about a society with current technology where near everyone achieves doctorate level education, crime and other social problem are near non-existent etc? I recon low millions could keep going better than fine.

Provide sufficiently advanced society with sufficiently advanced technology and I don't think there really is a practical lower limit.

2

OppositeFuzzy6178 t1_j7rvaxk wrote

I would say that a minimum of one billion people would be required to preserve modern civilization with advanced technology and medicine. Even if we could progress further with a smaller population, I think it would be difficult to maintain our current level of technology and medicine.

2

nicholsz t1_j7s8m75 wrote

I think it depends on the framing. Do we pick certain people to keep, or is it random? Do they all just disappear and get Raptured one day, or do we have some time to prep?

I'd guess that we could probably get by with a few million without a massive drop in quality of life, but that's if we had time to prepare. Wiping out 99.99% of the human population all at once would not result in a good time for the survivors.

2

OperationMobocracy t1_j7sgb1o wrote

In the Kim Stanley Robinson novel Aurora they send a generation ship to Tau Ceti on a planned one way voyage and the ship only has 2000 people. It’s a complete biosphere system where they grow food and raise livestock.

It’s science fiction and there’s a bit of hand waving — 3D printers that can make complex things, including more 3D printers and an advanced ship AI.

But I’d say maybe at worst for Earth living it’s really only off by a couple of orders of magnitude if you’re willing to accept a more communal lifestyle and not something involving contemporary levels of false-choice consumption.

2

princesamurai45 t1_j7sp478 wrote

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1800, there was about 1 Billion people. It took until 1927 for that to double to 2 billion, and go from the cotton gin to automatic weapons. I definitely think we could go from that to the society we have today without a 4x population increase in the last 96 years. We were already making basic computers during WW2. I don’t think the growth of population is the primary driver of the development the semi conductor, or silicon wafers, or transistors, or really any of the technological hallmarks of our current civilization. The institutions and wealth available would facilitate these developments among the highly trained academics, even if the population growth from 1927 to current was cut in half or even more.

2

massivetypo t1_j7t1xfc wrote

If you get to set criterion and choose? Then 1,200,000

That’s 12 pods of 100,000 Sex and age distributed. All healthy presceened. Normal distribution of iq with min 120 iq. Maximum ethno diversity in both sexes.

Pods physically distributed for minimum Covariance of exogenous extinction shocks

2

[deleted] t1_j7pchla wrote

If we were to take the top 1% of the population by IQ, we’d be fine.

Sure there would be an endless number of stupid arguments and differences of opinion, followed by childish spats and tantrums, but all in all, we’d be in a much better place.

That’s still 80 million people but by the time those fuckers had finished with all of the ADHD, lunatic, self obsessed murdering lunatics, we’d be down to about a few million or so.

WCGW?

1

mf279801 t1_j7qhx43 wrote

I know you were joking, but might want to check your math (apologies if the math error was part of the joke)

3

aeusoes1 t1_j7qbkmt wrote

That sounds like a terrible experience. Wise of you to disqualify yourself.

2

[deleted] t1_j7rvu3t wrote

Oddly, I haven’t.

1

aeusoes1 t1_j7s7jh6 wrote

I see you've corrected your mathematical error.

1

[deleted] t1_j7s98a2 wrote

It seems a very odd view that making a simple error is an indicator of lack of intelligence.

Do you think that incredibly intelligent people don’t make simple errors when not really paying attention to what they are doing?

Because they certainly make incredibly large errors when they are paying attention.

1

aeusoes1 t1_j7smpku wrote

>It seems a very odd view that making a simple error is an indicator of lack of intelligence.

I was joking, but since you're getting defensive, I might point out that stating 800 million was 1% of 8 billion was merely the most obvious of the errors, sloppy writing, and spurious logic in your comment. I mean, just look at this gem:

>by the time those fuckers had finished with all of the ADHD, lunatic, self obsessed murdering lunatics, we’d be down to about a few million or so.

If you really can't see all the problems in just this sentence alone, then this is perhaps a real-life example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. And I'm not sure if I even want to touch on the intolerant inferences you were making about neurodivergence.

Perhaps you really are a genius belonging to the top 1% of the populace, a place I wouldn't even put myself. If so, you have done a masterful job of covering it up.

1

[deleted] t1_j7ss93p wrote

You do have a point.

Certainly not my best work.

2

aeusoes1 t1_j7st86f wrote

A few years ago, I had a doctor appointment and meant to leave work a half hour before to get there on time but instead left an hour and a half early. I was too embarrassed to go back. If that was my 1% genius test, I would have failed.

2

bdd6911 t1_j7pj0pd wrote

You got me. I started reading this and was like wtf, a lot could go wrong….then I finished reading and laughed out loud. You got me.

1

AssBlast2020 t1_j7pxy14 wrote

check put Facfulness, that book puts modern world population at 11bn

1

grapegeek t1_j7q4kmw wrote

If you want to keep a functioning society with trade and manufacturing of basic items, it's probably on the magnitude of millions of people. But if you take out a few key people in chip development or internet security or whatever and nobody else understands it, then whole parts of the infrastructure would default to a lower level. I would say to keep things moving with new research and development, at least a billion people.

Too keep minimum viable genetic diversity is about 200 non related people and if you gave them a big fat library and 3d printers to make whatever they needed, then that's all you need.

1

kimjongun-69 t1_j7q8lg1 wrote

Almost none I'd say, at least with the right technologies. Given that most things are automatable, farming, government, manufacturing, maintenance, etc. One could build tools, robots and AI to handle most of the tasks. Farming through automated vertical farming or aerophonics. Robots will auto collect, reseed, process, package and distribute the products. It can already be done but I guess theres not much pressure or incentives to do so, and other traditional farmers will be left in the dust. So if we had to, we could do a bunch of things like this.

Cars can already drive themselves and 3d printers can print houses from scratch, and many things too.

So with maybe 100-1000 intelligent and educated individuals, I think it is not only possible but quite practical. They could start small and build up what they have, and without any bureaucratic burden or needing please any side, they can move quite fast and get things done.

1

crusoe t1_j7r131z wrote

Whatever the current population is at that tech level.

For example. Zombies wipe out 90% of humanity. Well we're back at locomotive and sailing ships based on the population of that era.

Some of the simpler high tech stuff or knowledge may survive ( such as knowing about sterility for surgery, electric motors, wind power ) but other stuff just can't be done.

1

mhornberger t1_j7rx0ol wrote

The answer is not static, because technology is not static. Automation continues to improve, and even faster change is coming. Culture meat, cellular agriculture, controlled-environment agriculture, etc. So you'll need ever-fewer people working in agriculture, far fewer than work there now (globally), but not zero.

But construction, manufacturing, even sanitation are much harder to automate. We're a long way from a robot being able to clean up a messy house. Think of what it would take to deal with this properly. Cleaning out the garage, sorting out the garbage from what had value, maybe listing the reasonably valuable items (if any) for sale, identifying what may have sentimental or novelty value, etc. There are tons of jobs like this out there that are labor-intensive but not easily automatable.

I also don't see humans "evaporating" suddenly, unless you believe in the Rapture. I don't think the rich are plotting to murder us all. There are, however, plenty on r/Futurology who aspire to kill hundreds of millions of people, or engage in radical population reduction, to "save the environment" or achieve economic justice. I just don't think effectuating that is very likely. I think a more likely issue is population decline from lower fertility rates. But that decline will be relatively gradual.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate#what-explains-the-change-in-the-number-of-children-women-have

I do think that may eventually lead to the collapse of technological civilization, but I also don't see any remedy for it. Mainly since most of the things demographers trace the declining fertility rates to I consider positive developments. Education, wealth, empowerment for women/girls, etc.

1

[deleted] t1_j7t0wf3 wrote

[removed]

1

massivetypo t1_j7t2mb9 wrote

Here is my estimate. It is only an estimate so it should not be relied upon.

47,243

No 74,342.

Sorry

1

CynicalTrans t1_j7tr2sd wrote

If humanity purged capitalism and embraced doing things because it's needed and not for financial gain. And got to a point where if you want something you just go get one. With that, my best deductive/inductive reasoning is probably between 10b and 15b in total. But keeping capitalism and the current status quo, the max on the planet would be like 5b at a stretch.

1

ChessIsAwesome t1_j7v8xiv wrote

There is no specific minimum population size required for preserving modern civilization and advancing it further, as several factors contribute to the sustainability and progress of a civilization. These include access to resources, governance and leadership, education, scientific and technological progress, economic stability, and social and cultural norms, among others.

However, a minimum viable population (MVP) is considered to be the smallest number of individuals required for a population to survive and avoid extinction. The exact number required for an MVP can vary depending on the species and its environment, but a commonly cited estimate is around 500 to 1,000 individuals.

For human populations, the MVP is a topic of much debate and speculation among demographers, biologists, and sociologists, with estimates ranging from a few thousand to several tens of thousands. It is important to note, however, that an MVP is not a guarantee of a thriving civilization, and much larger populations are likely needed to support the complex systems and institutions that make up modern civilization.

In any case, it's worth considering that population size alone is not the only determining factor for a civilization's success and that a more diverse, equitable, and sustainable society is likely to be more resilient in the long term.

1

patchway247 t1_j7y0i71 wrote

Less than what we currently have, but should Def be smarter

1

TonyWhoop t1_j7qpr9s wrote

Based on arable land, half a billion people should live on this planet.

0

Surur t1_j7r1im6 wrote

That sounds like a false fact.

0

MaybeACoder007 t1_j7pfw6d wrote

As people have said, it’s most likely in the few 100k range. We are getting close enough to gene editing that it may be less. We’re also getting close to ova fusion so we could theoretically get rid of the Y chromosomes as well soon—and create something like a Utopia free of toxic masculinity or needless violence, suffering, crime, etc…

−3

drweird t1_j7psujk wrote

Holy sexism Batman!

2

MaybeACoder007 t1_j7r118p wrote

I mean, Batman is a gendered word. Perhaps you mean Bat Person.

As Batwoman is the superior moral character in the series. I mean, Batman went to Jail for just reason in the Harley Quinn Cartoon.

1