Ideas that win in life, are winner ideas, doesn’t mean they are good or bad, but it means they are good at winning.

Does a winner idea always win? is there a spectrum for winning? would an idea that won in history always win under the same conditions? that’s the margin of error of an idea winning or losing then being adopted from all the world?

If luck is big factor for an idea to win are all our culture, customs, morality, law… mainly what won with some luck?

When I talk to older people, they tend to have their unique outlook in life; their own behavioral psychology theories, their own sociological hypotheses, their own idea about how the economy works… often that not their ideas seem silly but at least it is their idea.

As opposite, the younger generation seem to believe more in pop psychology, “fun facts”, mainstream activism, and sometimes some extremist or edgy ideas. These ideas seem to come in bulk, a person would subscribe to many ideas.

I give up on this post, that’s all.

Overpopulation might seem like a big issue, but for me I do not mind it, in this post I will try to write some arguments why I think so, doesn’t have to be right or wrong, it is just why overpopulation doesn’t keep me awake at night.

The logic of the resources abuse argument goes like: with more people in the world, we use more resources, therefore we abuse resources.

My issue with this, is that it fails to account for that with a lower population, we might use the same amount of resources in a longer period, instead of 10 billion people living through a century, they gonna now live through a millennia and use the same amount of resources. So what’s the difference?

This is of course a simplification of the argument and its counter-argument, a thought experiment if you will. If we think about it a bit more, a bigger population might be a better idea since simply put a bigger population function better.

The myth is that we simply accumulate knowledge from previous generations, and the more time goes, the more progress is made.

This is evidently not true, modern progress is a direct result of population growth, the more people out there, the more discovering out there, the fast we build on other people’s discoveries. It is accumulative knowledge in real time super boosted by an economy of scale of ideas and human resources. No civilization in the past did experience scientific prosperity without a population growth going hand-in-hand.

With a smaller population we might use less resources per capita, but that’s simply because the world economy won’t scale big enough for us to consume as much resources as we desire. So a smaller population is nothing but a controller economical collapse.