Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

I am going to try something I have not done in a while, and actually answer your questions and not just put out snappy one liners, cause I can't think of any. It has never worked in it past, but what the hell right?

You think we will all march happily ever after into the future?

No, I assume we will go into the future like a new born baby. Crying and screaming and wetting ourselves, but over the years I expect us to calm down a bit (or kill ourselves.)

I don't think the difference between rich and poor under the society and economical structure we are now will be resolve in centuries.

What you describe here is not everyone content and happy. What you describe is not the hypothetical end of progress. Basically you are saying since when A is true B is true, thus B must ALWAYS be true... Which is it not if A is false.

And the difference between countries/cultures will not magically disappear either.

I am sure they will persist long past their use, but if there is no cause of friction between them then, surprise surprise there is no friction between them. Once again it goes back to why would there be wars?

And we are just the luck few lived in a wealthy society compare to more than 2/3 of the rest.

Once again you make the mistake of using parts of the currant situation to support your theories in a totally different situation, if everyone is happy and content then THERE WOULD NOT BE A SPLIT LIKE THAT.

And it's the difference and those don't want to follow the rule will bring out the war.

See pretty much every point.

Lack of variety has proven to be disasters in history and in evolution. Who do you think that we are the only living beings in the Universe? Simply because we can't see them, don't mean the competition don't exist. Hell, it might even being one of the sub-species of human after genetic modifications, or simply by pure mutation. A specie fail to adapt the changes will be eliminated.

Okay, even if some aliens come out of no where all of a sudden. I at least find it much more likely they will not be hostile, although of course it is very hard to tell cause we know nothing about them right now.

Argument:Assuredly a it will come down to whomever has the highest tech levels, after all, numbers don't really count for anything, you know who wins between 20 guys charging at one guy with a machine gun? The guy with the machine gun. Thus they would only be a threat if they had a higher technology then us, and thus they would be able to support themselves in luxury as we would, taking away any reason to attack us. Now, the only exception is if they have some racial psycho shit going down, and then I find it more logical that any race like that would be unable to reach the required amount of cooperation, after all, humans can't advance anything with the help of other humans, and I fail to see why that would be different for other species.

Also: Who is this for?

That's the spirit, derailing

No one here is really derailing any more or less then you.

[counting]

No, I wasn't, and I'm not sure where you got that from.

What you describe about birth control, only 2 kids to maintain constant population, having kids has no impact in economic role (the kids in spacer worlds are even not connect with their parents), and the even distribution of population into different worlds (your 9, Asimov 50), and the tone of "Greater numbers are not necessary, period". It's exactly what Spacer Worlds are described. (If you haven't read the series, I suggested people can read them, it's quite interesting and not that much outdated even its written half a century ago.)

Whether or not I even mentioned anything like that is pretty objective: I didn't.

Then how do you account for the new world to maintain the same productivity as we have today? With no advanced in automatic production, who in the future world will manage the production and what would that look like? Can you describe your vision for me? Or the society just maintain itself and drop back to a world with 1/9 productions capacity?

Good for you. I never mentioned that either. It's as if nothing in your post had a damn thing to do with what I said.

All I said was that even if the human population stopped growing altogether, we'd still be able to populate many times the area of our current residence (Earth) with no drawback. We wouldn't need to change how we do things. If the Earth suddenly had one billion people instead of almost seven billion, we would be just fine without needing a bunch of automated servants.

My other point was that not having more kids has nothing to do with not wanting "progress". I outlined a number of reasons why, in recent history, people don't have as many children, and it has absolutely nothing to do with robots or automation or a perceived want of stagnation. It has to do with health, medicine, education, and more opportunities for people to get along and be productive without children being had.

And this I am sorry it's my bad not using the right quote, since it's meant to reply Nikov and others posts. I think I got mixed up, and I'll be more careful in the future. But I like to say that the rest of 6 billion people are not just sitting idle and do nothing to modern world production. And I do agree that the recent drop of birth rate is "somehow" happened (I mentioned it earlier), nothing to do with robots. It's the problem of not wanting to progress that's bothering me. (Nothing to do with your points, my bad again to mixed up my personal view with the previous discussion). And I think we need to get along before entering the heat exchange, right?

One the topic of this note, I do wonder what will happen if the earth population DO drop to 1 billion tomorrow. Will the society really not affected that much? And what's the minimum resident required to "operate" our modern world? What's the suitable number of a self sustain colony world?

[Criptfeind]

No, I wasn't, and I'm not sure where you got that from.

What you describe about birth control, only 2 kids to maintain constant population, having kids has no impact in economic role (the kids in spacer worlds are even not connect with their parents), and the even distribution of population into different worlds (your 9, Asimov 50), and the tone of "Greater numbers are not necessary, period". It's exactly what Spacer Worlds are described. (If you haven't read the series, I suggested people can read them, it's quite interesting and not that much outdated even its written half a century ago.)

Okay. Two things.

1: No positive impact is not the same as no impact. IE: We no longer need to churn out children or starve to death, that just takes away a lot of the pressure to have them right there.

2: ASIMOV IS NOT A FUCKING PHYSIC FORTUNE COOKIE! JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME SIMILARITIES DOES NOT MEAN THAT HIS BOOKS ARE ACCURATE IN HOW SUCH A THING WILL HAPPEN! IF HE IS SO FUCKING RIGHT WHERE IS MY SENTIENT SEX BOT? ACCORDING TO THE TIME LINE WE SHOULD HAVE RUDIMENTARY ONES BY NOW THAT FREAKING LAIR!

Then how do you account for the new world to maintain the same productivity as we have today? With no advanced in automatic production, who in the future world will manage the production and what would that look like? Can you describe your vision for me? Or the society just maintain itself and drop back to a world with 1/9 productions capacity?

We already have fairly advanced automatic production. If there is only 1/9 of the population then surprise surprise there would only need to be 1/9 of the resources as well. Also, there are certain resources that are not tied to population that would stay the same and rise per person, like water or land. So yes we would be better off actually.

One the topic of this note, I do wonder what will happen if the earth population DO drop to 1 billion tomorrow. Will the society really not affected that much? And what's the minimum resident required to "operate" our modern world? What's the suitable number of a self sustain colony world?

It would be a huge catastrophe if it happened in one day, but not if the numbers lowered over the coarse of a thousand years. Our world is made to try to take advantage of the full number of people, you really can't take a large number of people from anywhere without shit screwing up, but over time the world will automatically adjust to a lessening of population. For a colony world? One I guess if it was automated enough. If we had a full earth like world I would try to start with at least two thousand though.

[counting]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I am going to try something I have not done in a while, and actually answer your questions and not just put out snappy one liners, cause I can't think of any. It has never worked in it past, but what the hell right?

You think we will all march happily ever after into the future?

No, I assume we will go into the future like a new born baby. Crying and screaming and wetting ourselves, but over the years I expect us to calm down a bit (or kill ourselves.)

I don't think the difference between rich and poor under the society and economical structure we are now will be resolve in centuries.

What you describe here is not everyone content and happy. What you describe is not the hypothetical end of progress. Basically you are saying since when A is true B is true, thus B must ALWAYS be true... Which is it not if A is false.

And the difference between countries/cultures will not magically disappear either.

I am sure they will persist long past their use, but if there is no cause of friction between them then, surprise surprise there is no friction between them. Once again it goes back to why would there be wars?

And we are just the luck few lived in a wealthy society compare to more than 2/3 of the rest.

Once again you make the mistake of using parts of the currant situation to support your theories in a totally different situation, if everyone is happy and content then THERE WOULD NOT BE A SPLIT LIKE THAT.

And it's the difference and those don't want to follow the rule will bring out the war.

See pretty much every point.

Lack of variety has proven to be disasters in history and in evolution. Who do you think that we are the only living beings in the Universe? Simply because we can't see them, don't mean the competition don't exist. Hell, it might even being one of the sub-species of human after genetic modifications, or simply by pure mutation. A specie fail to adapt the changes will be eliminated.

Okay, even if some aliens come out of no where all of a sudden. I at least find it much more likely they will not be hostile, although of course it is very hard to tell cause we know nothing about them right now.

Argument:Assuredly a it will come down to whomever has the highest tech levels, after all, numbers don't really count for anything, you know who wins between 20 guys charging at one guy with a machine gun? The guy with the machine gun. Thus they would only be a threat if they had a higher technology then us, and thus they would be able to support themselves in luxury as we would, taking away any reason to attack us. Now, the only exception is if they have some racial psycho shit going down, and then I find it more logical that any race like that would be unable to reach the required amount of cooperation, after all, humans can't advance anything with the help of other humans, and I fail to see why that would be different for other species.

Also: Who is this for?

That's the spirit, derailing

No one here is really derailing any more or less then you.

I think the lack of quote is really messing the discussion. I am replying multiple posts in one reply, thus I originally think it's good to drop the quotes, obviously it leads to misunderstandings. (I modified the quotes, derailed is meant for the picture.)

And I am not defending or rooting the future for perfectly happy and content worlds I never thinks it's possible. Thus all your points saying I use that pretense to support my believes is really irrelevant. I made it very clear that the future will be messy. And the spacer worlds described in Asimov's robot series serve the role of pointing out the absurdity that societies embrace few elite compare to the big and populated Earth will look like. They are designed to see what the future may be if human going to the extreme (in both direction). The real world is in the mixture.

Also, war is fighting between factions that has the same level of play field, or it will be just genocide like the New World and Old World collide in the history. When 2 factions are equal (or at least equal in chance), there is no stop from one side to pickup the tech of the other side. And numbers do count when one side rely heavily on techs. The insurgence learned to use RPG to against tanks. Using suicide bombing to inflicted heavy casualties. In history it's always the one with more army win the war eventually. (You think U.S win the Iraq War already?) Even in a futuristic interstellar nuclear war, it's easy to imagine that the one with more planets and population will have more chance to win a (fair and level) war.

About aliens, if the evolution process is the universal rule, I don't think there will be peace if two species want to occupied the same resources. (have similar metrical needs) But I think it's more likely that the future war will be fought between difference "humans", with enough time and separation, the difference between different worlds will emerge. And you just need one world to think that it's not enough, the competition will start. Unless all human nature somehow all being altered. I want to extend the future with what we think is plausible today, and people are still pretty much the plain old fighting and loving human beings.

[counting]

Okay. Two things.

1: No positive impact is not the same as no impact. IE: We no longer need to churn out children or starve to death, that just takes away a lot of the pressure to have them right there.

2: ASIMOV IS NOT A FUCKING PHYSIC FORTUNE COOKIE! JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME SIMILARITIES DOES NOT MEAN THAT HIS BOOKS ARE ACCURATE IN HOW SUCH A THING WILL HAPPEN! IF HE IS SO FUCKING RIGHT WHERE IS MY SENTIENT SEX BOT? ACCORDING TO THE TIME LINE WE SHOULD HAVE RUDIMENTARY ONES BY NOW THAT FREAKING LAIR!

1. it's not the reply to your post

2. It's not the point I am saying, I just point out the similarity, and saying that this topic is already being brought up by someone named Asimov, I never contest he is right or wrong, just he pointing out where the problems might be and why it would exist. Novels meant to reflect the human condition. I agree with you that it's not fortune telling. But an exaggeration of the current situation, projected into the future. As do we all with our limited knowledge.

We already have fairly advanced automatic production. If there is only 1/9 of the population then surprise surprise there would only need to be 1/9 of the resources as well. Also, there are certain resources that are not tied to population that would stay the same and rise per person, like water or land. So yes we would be better off actually.

It would be a huge catastrophe if it happened in one day, but not if the numbers lowered over the coarse of a thousand years. Our world is made to try to take advantage of the full number of people, you really can't take a large number of people from anywhere without shit screwing up, but over time the world will automatically adjust to a lessening of population. For a colony world? One I guess if it was automated enough. If we had a full earth like world I would try to start with at least two thousand though.

I think you do pointing out the possible scenario. Human current economic structure really is built for a constant growing society. Be this is only a thought experiment, to see the viability of what a world with very little population would look like, and how will it functions.

Another way of pointing out the question is if human somehow controlled the population at 1 billion since 1800, can modern world still be like the way it is today? (Not the details, but the overall living style, production, techs level). First, there will probably have a different world war. (it's not likely to die that many), no mass mobilization, will the weapon technology going toward WWI style of trenches? Machine guns necessary?. Second, the green revolution will probably never happened, our agriculture related chemistry and bio development will not be needed. And with less population concentrate, the city size is probably stay at 18 century level, so probably skyscraper are not necessary too. Third, will the lack of cheap labors increase the mechanize industry production even more? Or the lack of demand, thus also eliminate the need for mass production? Any more possibilities?

P.S there is one thing less population also may lead to - less invention. Probably even slow down the science advancement. if Einstein is a genius of 1 in a billion, he may not even been born in a less populated world. The absolute amount of people on the extreme spectrum will be far less. So in a world of only thousands or millions, it's not likely to produce massive different creativity and it has to be very specialized. 

[Criptfeind]

And I am not defending or rooting the future for perfectly happy and content worlds I never thinks it's possible. Thus all your points saying I use that pretense to support my believes is really irrelevant.

To continually and repeatedly used these fictional worlds as examples. You have also described them as

Everyone is content, everyone is happy.

If you are not trying to talk about a situation, then you should not talk about a situation. Thus yes it is very much relevant to the conversation.

And the spacer worlds described in Asimov's robot series serve the role of pointing out the absurdity that societies embrace few elite compare to the big and populated Earth will look like. They are designed to see what the future may be if human going to the extreme (in both direction). The real world is in the mixture.

Now, I have not read the books, so I have no idea here, but is the issue not the friction between the spacer worlds and earth? For reasons you have yet to describe? If all the worlds were like the spacer worlds and there was no world like earth... What would cause the issues? It seems the way you have described them is class warfare between the rich and utopia spacer worlds and the poor and overcrowded earth, which of course if the population was spread evenly though ten planets and then not advanced there would not be that poor big planet to cause issues.

Also, war is fighting between factions that has the same level of play field, or it will be just genocide like the New World and Old World collide in the history. When 2 factions are equal (or at least equal in chance), there is no stop from one side to pickup the tech of the other side. And numbers do count when one side rely heavily on techs. The insurgence learned to use RPG to against tanks. Using suicide bombing to inflicted heavy casualties. In history it's always the one with more army win the war eventually. (You think U.S win the Iraq War already?) Even in a futuristic interstellar nuclear war, it's easy to imagine that the one with more planets and population will have more chance to win a (fair and level) war.

First off, I am not thinking the Iraq war is the best example, it is less of a war and more of a political shit hole (not to mention the fact that the 'enemy' do not in fact have 'more army'.) Secondly this whole thing addresses none of the points in my argument of why there would be a real war.

About aliens, if the evolution process is the universal rule, I don't think there will be peace if two species want to occupied the same resources.

Well, if the races inexplicably did grow large and continuously for no real reason then yes they would need each others resources... But why would they is the question.

But I think it's more likely that the future war will be fought between difference "humans", with enough time and separation, the difference between different worlds will emerge. And you just need one world to think that it's not enough, the competition will start. Unless all human nature somehow all being altered. I want to extend the future with what we think is plausible today, and people are still pretty much the plain old fighting and loving human beings.

For one thing, that is more likely if the human race grows huge and spreads out. For another, do you really see the majority of humans trying to kill others purely cause they are different? That is actually pretty rare, and most cases it is economic or political concerns that drive most conflicts. Which in the stated scenario I fail to see how they would come about.

1. it's not the reply to your post

2. It's not the point I am saying, I just point out the similarity, and saying that this topic is already being brought up by someone named Asimov, I never contest he is right or wrong, just he pointing out where the problems might be and why it would exist. Novels meant to reflect the human condition. I agree with you that it's not fortune telling. But an exaggeration of the current situation, projected into the future. As do we all with our limited knowledge.

1: That does not matter in the least. At all.

2: You do contest he is right quite clearly by using his thoughts as proof for your own concepts. And I say here that I believe Asimov's work is predictably flawed. The rate of gain in knowledge is huge, and has been huge. The man died 20 years ago, and the books you are referencing were written between 20 and 60 years ago. Not only that but they were not made to be studies or thought experiments, they were made to be entertainment. I read fantasy, but I don't expect to start blowing fireballs out of my hands at any moment. All in all I feel you using them as justification for your point is a poor idea.

I think you do pointing out the possible scenario. Human current economic structure really is built for a constant growing society. Be this is only a thought experiment, to see the viability of what a world with very little population would look like, and how will it functions.

Another way of pointing out the question is if human somehow controlled the population at 1 billion since 1800, can modern world still be like the way it is today? (Not the details, but the overall living style, production, techs level). First, there will probably have a different world war. (it's not likely to die that many), no mass mobilization, will the weapon technology going toward WWI style of trenches? Machine guns necessary?. Second, the green revolution will probably never happened, our agriculture related chemistry and bio development will not be needed. And with less population concentrate, the city size is probably stay at 18 century level, so probably skyscraper are not necessary too. Third, will the lack of cheap labors increase the mechanize industry production even more? Or the lack of demand, thus also eliminate the need for mass production? Any more possibilities?

I am totally unsure what you are getting at here, but I believe it might be a tangent I do not wish to involve myself in, I will join this though experiment if I deem it fun, but it is not the argument I signed up for. As far as this impacts the argument, yes, lower then a certain population threshold and with insufficient automation I would assume things would, if not regress, fail to move forward at a quick enough pace.

P.S there is one thing less population also may lead to - less invention. Probably even slow down the science advancement. if Einstein is a genius of 1 in a billion, he may not even been born in a less populated world. The absolute amount of people on the extreme spectrum will be far less. So in a world of only thousands or millions, it's not likely to produce massive different creativity and it has to be very specialized. 

Although I don't believe it would be a direct correlation, after all the mother of invention is necessity so one would think a basic level of progress would keep up, you do have a point as to where true breakthroughs come in. Of course, this goes back to: Once we reach that point why do we need to take monumental steps forward anyway?

[G-Flex]

No, I wasn't, and I'm not sure where you got that from.

What you describe about birth control, only 2 kids to maintain constant population, having kids has no impact in economic role (the kids in spacer worlds are even not connect with their parents), and the even distribution of population into different worlds (your 9, Asimov 50), and the tone of "Greater numbers are not necessary, period". It's exactly what Spacer Worlds are described. (If you haven't read the series, I suggested people can read them, it's quite interesting and not that much outdated even its written half a century ago.)

The fact that some other hypothetical future scenario has aspects similar to mine doesn't mean that I was describing the same scenario. I also never said that people would be evenly distributed amongst different worlds in the future, or that population wouldn't continue growing, or that greater numbers are never necessary, or that having children has no economic impact (obviously, it does; it's just not necessary to parent children these days in order to be socioeconomically productive and stable yourself).

Then how do you account for the new world to maintain the same productivity as we have today? With no advanced in automatic production, who in the future world will manage the production and what would that look like? Can you describe your vision for me? Or the society just maintain itself and drop back to a world with 1/9 productions capacity?

You do realize that a population one tenth the size also needs one tenth the productivity, right? Making 1/10 the amount of food, services, etc. is perfectly fine when you have 1/10 the people. Why would demand for things stay the same with a lower population? What sense does that make? If you have fewer people, you need less of everything, or at least most things. Some things, like some forms of scientific or artistic progress, which are reproducible without much cost, wouldn't be affected that much... but past a certain point, the limitations in those developments have nothing to do with population size anyway and more to do with time and changes in social climates.

But I like to say that the rest of 6 billion people are not just sitting idle and do nothing to modern world production.

Fewer people mean less production is necessary. Most of the production that people engage in is directly consumed by either themselves or someone else. If you have 10% as many people, you need 10% as many doctors, farmers, movie theaters, miners, steelworkers, and pretty much anything else you could think of. I do not believe that having one tenth our current population would seriously harm the productivity of the human race in general.

It's the problem of not wanting to progress that's bothering me.

People like progress now as much as they ever did (because they want easier lives and new toys to play with). The economy is still largely built around technological innovation, even if a lot of that is tainted by a consumer culture I'm not fond of.

Again, where do you see people "not wanting progress", and what does "not wanting progress" have to do with not wanting kids? "Wanting to have a lot of kids" and "wanting society/humanity to progress" are two completely different things.

[Criptfeind]

Needs less substance and more snappy one liners, but other then that I agree quite a bit.

[counting]

@Criptfeind I think it's unfair to criticize someone's work if you never actually read them. The work itself already explained a lot of the issues you brought up. Asimov is deemed as one of the 3 most important 20th century sifi authors as well as an engineer and scientist as well. And a novel does brought out human condition has nothing to do about my following thought experiment, please stay on subject or feel free not to discuss it at all if you don't want/like to. (It seems you already selectively using some of my words, I guess you already decided what is worthy of discussion or not. I don't think a continuation discussion existed now, you've slice my sentences as one liners, without actually looking the whole paragraph)

@Criptfeind and G-Flex
The thought experiment is just for the purpose of creating a more plausible scenario, and I repeat its ME started this, not to confuse with the novel please. And the good thing about thought experiment is that we can make extreme assumption and detected if there is some hidden factors that we take for granted in current world. (Like brought up discussion about how soon can a society transform from 7 billion to 1, and if the production and science advancement can sustain)

And again, I must repeat, I only pointed out the similarity. And thinking it might be a good start to begin with some common grounds bringing out at least one possible scenario (I think it's related, or perhaps you don't think so) It also been discussed by some famous writer, too (Like I mentioned before Ian M banks). So it can be like inviting other famous writer into out little discussion. But since the writer is not really here, and I think someone doesn't actually read the work. So I'll have to describe and defend not only my own opinion, but Asimov's stand as well (a lot of it I do recognized, not all). But I think I am not as a good writer as Asimov is, and really not clearly making his point clearly (or mine) to you guys. It's my fault.

@everyone related to the subject of possible future human world, it's should be a multiple interstellar worlds with few population each and spread evenly, or it's a future with one overcrowded Earth where only a selective few lived in many off-shoot colonies. I think the later is more likely to happened (in my opinion) in the near future. And under this model, it's more likely to support a massive population Earth up to 1 trillion (remember the original topics?) using import products from colonies, and eventually leading into high possibility in interstellar WAR. (class warfare, or ideology difference, or else)

Or on the other possible path, if human can grow pass that stage, or started in the very near future toward a more automatic society altogether, we may result in a more equalized and welfare centered society, where everyone is maximized it's own utility first. I think it will be a much slower expansion and possibly results in very slow tech advanced rate. If no external force evolved, I think it may be also easily leading to slow and eventually stop advancement society all together. (repeat : JUST my opinion). The reason is that "some big accident eventually happens" a society less diversity and getting used to little change is easy to be affect by events that can set back decades advancement, with high possibility the society will never recovered from it, but simply collapse.

So if there is 1/10 of the current population in the world right now, I think it's very likely we will never going to the moon, or even launch a space program. Thinking that if we have more population like 20 billion someday in next century, the population pressure along will push the development of colonization off world itself, or simply large world wars will break out. And the difference in culture or religious isn't the sole cause, but it will provide the warm bed for possible reasons for wars. (And easier to create misunderstanding).

P.S. And I do wonder what's the real reason for WAR. It seems like being embedded into human/animal nature. (There is a recent research suggested high correlation when man see the picture of pretty woman and support aggressive opinion regarding war effort)

[counting]

On separate note about "progress" and "number of kids" I think I'll discuss this in this different discussion to prevent confusion. I believe it's exactly the culture difference between you and me causing this different point of view.

I am from Eastern countries, and the traditional view here, and culture is that we see the future is depend on how you transfer your roles and knowledge to your children. It's very different from the well developed individualism in Western countries. I think to neglect the will of having kids is highly correlated with lacking the will of transferring the knowledge, and it will lead to a slow progressing society. You will have to reinvented many concepts every generation. I think it's the difference of why there is always a current trend and different "era" every decades or so in western world. But in eastern world we see ourselves as the extension of the past. Please feel free to discuss the different point of view, I just want to point out my point of view from the culture where I grew up with.

And I can somehow understand your point of view, that under a culture where individual difference is being promoted and social norm, will leading the view that the society can grow without the burden of the past, the transfer of knowledge is done by abstract process and public educations with teachers you don't have close relationship with. Am I getting this correct? I think it may be true that under this different believe, a relaxing and comfortable society also can be productive? It's against many believes in my mind. We always believe you can only choose fun or play, not both at the same time in the same role.

[Lord Shonus]

P.S. And I do wonder what's the real reason for WAR. It seems like being embedded into human/animal nature. (There is a recent research suggested high correlation when man see the picture of pretty woman and support aggressive opinion regarding war effort)

Man (as a species) is a territorial pack predator. That alone goes a long way toward explaining warfare. Add ideology to the mix and the reasons increase. Add the conflicitng human desires for freedom and domination, you get the picture.

[G-Flex]

I think to neglect the will of having kids is highly correlated with lacking the will of transferring the knowledge, and it will lead to a slow progressing society.

Many of the people I know who don't/won't have kids are also the most socially-active people I know, who are very keen on progress and the shaping of human knowledge in this and future generations.

You will have to reinvented many concepts every generation. I think it's the difference of why there is always a current trend and different "era" every decades or so in western world. But in eastern world we see ourselves as the extension of the past. Please feel free to discuss the different point of view, I just want to point out my point of view from the culture where I grew up with.

And I can somehow understand your point of view, that under a culture where individual difference is being promoted and social norm, will leading the view that the society can grow without the burden of the past, the transfer of knowledge is done by abstract process and public educations with teachers you don't have close relationship with. Am I getting this correct?

None of this makes any sense to me. Fewer people having children doesn't mean that the children have to reinvent everything on their own, because those children who are born still have parents. It's just like you claiming that having lower population means we'll be less "productive"; even if there are fewer parents, there are fewer children who need them, and (ideally) every child still has parents. If anything, each set of parents having a smaller amount of children gives them more opportunity to pay more individual attention to each one. You're also assuming a lot of things about "growing without the burden of the past" that I never stated or implied, nor do I believe in. I think you're assuming a lot of things about Western culture and about what I'm saying that have absolutely nothing to do with either. Yeah, Western culture can be startlingly individualistic, and I don't always think that's a good thing, and yeah, maybe that has something to do with people not being so obligated to have children. However, people who don't have kids are still productive in their own ways, which was exactly one of my points earlier: These days, even if you don't have kids, you can still impact society and the future in a profound way.

Quite frankly, I'm having trouble seeing how a lot of what you say has to do with reality.

[counting]

Many of the people I know who don't/won't have kids are also the most socially-active people I know, who are very keen on progress and the shaping of human knowledge in this and future generations.

None of this makes any sense to me. Fewer people having children doesn't mean that the children have to reinvent everything on their own, because those children who are born still have parents. It's just like you claiming that having lower population means we'll be less "productive"; even if there are fewer parents, there are fewer children who need them, and (ideally) every child still has parents. If anything, each set of parents having a smaller amount of children gives them more opportunity to pay more individual attention to each one. You're also assuming a lot of things about "growing without the burden of the past" that I never stated or implied, nor do I believe in. I think you're assuming a lot of things about Western culture and about what I'm saying that have absolutely nothing to do with either. Yeah, Western culture can be startlingly individualistic, and I don't always think that's a good thing, and yeah, maybe that has something to do with people not being so obligated to have children. However, people who don't have kids are still productive in their own ways, which was exactly one of my points earlier: These days, even if you don't have kids, you can still impact society and the future in a profound way.

Quite frankly, I'm having trouble seeing how a lot of what you say has to do with reality.

It's quite real from the culture and society where I come from. A well-establish person MUST be first successful in his family. - 齊家治國平天下 - managing a family before being able to run a country, then the world. If assume a future world where certain Eastern culture does become mainstream, than people will have to accept this basic believes as norm than simply just opinions. I am bring out the fact that no one single point of view is the only possible one. Many people do believe and do behavior very differently in different part of the world. I myself have being asked by my elders to have at least 3 kids. Although I am quite pro-western thinking actually, or we won't even have this discussion. Simply put larger family greater success is the axiom even till today. Although with the western culture becomes more intrusive, some younger generations do hold different views, but many are still rejecting, not embracing.

I don't denied that people with no kids can also be productive, and I am probably not getting the whole correct idea about western culture (since I don't grow up in the environment, and they are as diversify as in here). And perhaps the reality is that there are enough people believing in certain ways and act accordingly will affect the result whatever others' may think of it. I can tell that almost every major corporations in Eastern society (Japan, China, etc) is built upon family bounds. Their CEOs/presidents (the role of investors and managers are not distinctive here) changing hands and their related businesses only within families. Those family connections extending to who has many wives and kids. (People knows about them and somewhat envy if a man can have many mistresses and kids as an indication of success). Hence it's strange for some people here to think that an individual can live without heirs and still managing a productive role (or even ones own future). You can call it Eastern style conservative. AND its very real from what I see around me.

P.S. It also account for why one child policy in China doesn't reduce the population as quickly as one may think. And this policy is preying exactly the general wish of people expected many kids in their lives. It's not you can't have more than one kid, it's you have to paid money in order to have more kids. So only the richer folks can afford to have many kids. You see how strong the incentive is in Chinese culture.