= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Blind Spot: Malthusian Crunch - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (184)
Treating numbers that people with obvious biases pulled out of their ass as credible. Seriously, look at the history of carrying capacity estimates, they're always just above (or just below) whatever the current population happens to be.
Right. What's disturbing is that people who don't share these biases don't respond with estimates of their own. They respond with "too negligible to matter".
So, what would be a rational way to update based on both the detailed numbers provided by sources biased toward believing that overpopulation is a threat and on vague numbers provided by sources biased against believing that overpopulation is a threat?
What do you think the nature of each of these biases might be? Perhaps that might shed some light on how to correct for them.
By the way, how is this any different from half a century of predictions that AI is just around the corner?