Seems like this would break a lot of global systems and human cultures with exponential speed.

Seems more consequential than even a world war.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5530555&forum_id=2#47676342)

This thread will be more interesting if you spell out your thinking instead of just waving your hands around.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5530555&forum_id=2#47676365)

i can say, tho, that if recent experiences with tinkering (what if we keep kids out of school, what if we dont use downtown office space, what if we print some dollars) all seem to generate massive consequences.

"what if we just don't have a normal shaped age graph and instead have a funnel" does not seem promising

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5530555&forum_id=2#47676417)

'things will happen in the future that will probably have consequences which will make it different than the present and the past.'

Is probably a pretty good bet.

But not all that much of an actionable insight.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5530555&forum_id=2#47676431)

Why would some different system work any better?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5530555&forum_id=2#47676371)

added - I mean, that's largely happening regardless of what the population does, the most valuable companies today have a fraction of the workforce that the most valuable companies did 50 years ago.

The richest countries aren't the most populous.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5530555&forum_id=2#47676389)

do lower population rich countries spend less than high population poor countries?

-------

beating around the bush here,

I think a good book to read and then ponder a bit is "Where's My Flying Car" by J Storrs Hall.

If you've got better things to do than devote 10+ hours reading a randomly recommended book on autoadmit, here's a pretty good summary -

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-wheres-my-flying

If you've got better things to do than read a linked summary, let me try to give you my 2 minute summary:

The basic observation if the book is that technological progress has stalled, the question is why, and what next.

basically if you had taken the rate of technological progress from 1900 - 1950 or so, and projected to today, by now, we'd live like the Jetson, we'd have too cheap to meter nuclear energy, we'd have flying cars, nanotechnology, etc etc etc.

why didn't that happen?

what the book spends a lot of time arguing, is that it isn't the laws of physics that prevented that from happening, it was the people and institutions.

in large part, that we're victims of our own success, that we got too comfortable, and started bickering over how to split up the already large pie instead of growing the pie (largely through stuff like regulating the nuclear industry largely out of business).

If these are human problems rather than physics problems, that has certain implications.

It means there is a glut of technological solutions once the humans are sufficiently incentivized to go looking for and implement them.

------

A thing to ponder is, how bad will human societies let things get before the implement available technological solutions?

If there are available technological solutions, who will figure out the human coordination problems, how and why will they do so?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5530555&forum_id=2#47677082)

things could level out once the 20th C gens die off, but they/we may be in some for some very hard senescence, with no one to pay taxes or wipe are asses

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5530555&forum_id=2#47676372)