Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Elon Musk, while discussing his Teslabot concept, suggested that people who claim the world is overpopulated are helping to cause the downfall of civilisation.
Elon Musk says there are ‘not enough people’ and that the falling birthrate could threaten human civilization
Huileng Tan,Taiyler Simone Mitchell
Tue, December 7, 2021, 5:06 PM
- “If people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble, mark my words,” said Elon Musk.
- Musk was responding to a question about how the Tesla Bot could solve some labor issues.
- The global birthrate has been steadily declining since the 1960s, according to the World Bank.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said there are “not enough people,” which could threaten human civilization.
“I think one of the biggest risks to civilization is the low birth rate and the rapidly declining birthrate,” said the father of six at the Wall Street Journal’s annual CEO Council.
“And yet, so many people, including smart people, think that there are too many people in the world and think that the population is growing out of control. It’s completely the opposite. Please look at the numbers — if people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble, mark my words,” he said.
Musk was responding to a question about how the Tesla Bot could solve some labor issues. The Tesla Bot is Musk’s planned “humanoid robot” that he says will be built using Tesla’s self-driving car artificial intelligence. The Bot, said Musk during a Tesla AI event in August, would be capable of deadlifting up to 150 pounds and traveling at around 5 m.p.h.
…
Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-says-not-enough-070626755.html
Teslabot is a robot Elon Musk is developing to replace humans performing repetitive work.
Although Elon Musk didn’t explicitly mention greens, it seems pretty clear whom his comment was directed towards.
WUWT frequently covers prominent politicians and activists, like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, when they call for global population to be restricted to save the world from climate change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“if people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble”
My goodness, how did our civilization ever survive the 16th century, when there were only about 438million folk in the entire world in 1500? Did I miss the crumbling of civilization by 1600?
I suspect that in reality, civilization will be just fine with fewer folk on the planet. Shockingly a lower population might also mean less pressure on all kinds of resources. Of course, it might also mean less demand for the products of Mr Musk’s various businesses.
Strange how all kinds of people are prone to believe in catastrophes of one sort or another. It’s like being hooked on horror movies. The important thing is to remember that they are fiction…
“My goodness, how did our civilization ever survive the 16th century, when there were only about 438million folk in the entire world in 1500?”
It’s good to ask these questions.
The absolute population doesn’t speak to the rate of change.
Population was increasing between 1500 and 1600 as it has, quite possibly for the entirety of human evolution. Given fertility rates, population is likely to begin falling around the world for the first time.
There are reasons this is so important and probably an adverse factor.
GDP = productivity * population
If population is falling at a rate greater than productivity is rising, then GDP is falling.
Falling GDP means falling standards of living.
So, economic well being suffers – and the resources of that economic well being are what we often think of as civilization.
So humans did advance civilization, but I don’t think you or I would be happy this morning with 1500 standards of living, though with luck, we might get used to it. ( but maybe not – we’re far removed from self sufficiency ).
Another factor in the US is old age entitlement.
Ponzi schemes appear positive as long as there are more “investors” paying in than cashing out. As long as Social security and Medicare had more input than outgo, everybody’s happy. But Medicare ‘fund’ goes insolvent in five years, with fewer and fewer working age paying in.
“Strange how all kinds of people are prone to believe in catastrophes of one sort or another.”
Yes, it’s difficult to predict and many past catastrophes failed to occur ( ironically, such as the population bomb ).
Also ironically, population decline means we don’t have to worry about climate change!
As I wrote in the book
(https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09BCGLTVV),
falling population almost guarantees falling CO2 emissions.
That’s probably already baked in for countries with just falling working age population, which now includes the US, China and a growing list of others.
Because the see-saw of GDP depends on both population and productivity, the question should be asked, “Might it be possible to increase productivity faster with a smaller population?”
That’d be nice.
But more robots and fewer humans?
Some of my best friends have been humans.
How many “friends” can a person have? Some of the closest relationships develop in small communities, not urban ghettos.
Collapse is inexcusable hyperbole. However we are looking at big problems as the ratio of retirees to the working population continues to climb.
Nature will take care of ant excess, it doesn’t need our help.
Couldn’t we pass a law to require ants to be less excessive?
But there’s an excessive number of ants
All 7.8 E9 people on Earth today would stack easily, if somewhat uncomfortably, within half of the Grand Canyon.
Our local IKEA has a mockup of a 400 square foot apartment, 20 feet by 20 feet including living area, kitchen, sleeping, bath, storage all fitted out with example products from their store. Such an apartment could be provided for every one of those 7.8 billion and, with a little squeezing, all could fit within the state boundaries of Colorado, room to spare in Montana.
That’s NOT ttttoooo mmmmaaannnyyy people!
And how did we get here?
“Over the past 160 years, life expectancy (from birth) in the United States has risen from 39.4 years in 1860, to 78.9 years in 2020.”
Cancer death rate has fallen 26.5%. AARP Bulletin.
It was not from too much birthing but insufficient dying.
So, what’s the real issue?
I figure it’s a global cabal of progressive first worlders who figure they got their high standards of living and don’t want economic competition from those up and coming third worlders who don’t add value (black) and the famine, diseases, violence of energy poverty are just as effective as a bullet to the head and mass graves without leaving progressive fingerprints.
Would you want to live in such a world?
Since there are no conceivable problems with adding a few billion more people, I would not mind living in such a world.
I would not want to live in a world where the government has the power to decide how many children are permitted to have.
Most of these “few billion people” will will originate in dysfunctional nations that will be as corrupt and violent as they are now, if not more so. They will turn their gaze upon us and come here as they are doing now.
The government is already limiting the number of children you can have by making it more expensive and then telling you that you have to subsidize the underclass AND the third worlders being brought in to “keep the economy growing and save our pensions” because your not having children.
You really do have a low opinion of anyone who’s skin isn’t as light as yours.
You are making an assumption that guest has light skin. You might be right, but you aren’t speaking from knowledge.
This is not one of your better days!
Can you say, “pollyanna?”
Get back to me when they finally find that African Einstein they are looking for.
You have a limited imagination, and a poor grasp of the numbers, as I demonstrated above.
The real issue is with your sophist reasoning. You have overlooked the issues of land required for infrastructure, the availability of potable water, and the conflicting requirements of arable land to feed people, and flat land (not in flood plains) to house people.
So the attendant growth in CO2 emissions from the growing population ( including those from Mr Musk’s emissions elsewhere vehicles) will improve crop yields through global greening, to feed that same growing population. A virtuous circle for sure.
The climate change narrative is greatly exaggerated but the “CO2 is plant food” dismissal is pretty dumb. Agricultural fertilizer is necessary to support our population but the runoff does have consequences.
We don’t have any problems making more and better fertilizers or dealing with their overuse, but plants evolved when the earths CO2 levels were four or five times what they are now. So yes they will love some more atmospheric CO2.😎👍
Given the carbon, nitrogen etc cycles, I’m pretty certain that using our own waste would be more effective than artificial fertilisers. I hope that we organise* that sooner rather than later. We have to eventually, instead of regarding our waste as pollution.
(*Make it safe and palatable, ie not to smell too much. The biggest problems with organic waste fertiliser is diseases and people not liking the smell. I grew up in the country, and cow dung is not offensive to me, but it’s rarely used these days.)
While I’m generally not an Elon Musk fan, it is refreshing to see someone of his prominence challenge the Orothodoxy position on population. In spite of all the dire Club of Rome predictions from the ’70s, the world has actually gotten wealthier as population has increased, and the countries supposedly doomed by overpopulation (China, India, etc.) are not the impoverished basket cases they were predicted to become.
My view is that industrial civilization is a pyramid: if you want a higher apex, you need a broader base. So if we reduce earth’s population to the 2 billion or so Paul Ehrlich and others have identified as the planet’s “natural carrying capacity”, then fairly shortly (2 generations at most), we will be living at roughly the same level of technology as we were when the population was naturally at 2 billion — roughly 1927 according to worldometer.
One of the fantasies promoted in numerous post-apocalyptic novels and movies is that some high-tech oases populated by surviving elites will persist for years or even decades after the rest of civilization collapses and the cities are empty ruins. This can’t happen because without a broad base of population to take care of basic tasks, there is no pool of people with time to acquire the advanced skills needed to maintain, let alone expand and improve, the high-tech enclaves for the survivors. Textbooks on science and engineering don’t build bridges; it requires people with the time and native ability to absorb and apply those textbooks. Advanced software skills are useless when the chip manufacturing industry disappears.
This of course assumes we could actually engineer a reduction such as Ehrlich and others advocate without causing global unrest and violent chaos, which is another fantasy embraced by the population control orthodoxy.
Is it possible to overbuild your pyramid with a base that is too broad?
Why am I thinking that “the more the merrier” mantra is like a pyramid scheme?
Why am I thinking that you would have no problem with more people, if only they looked and thought more like you?
Perhaps you are projecting.
I don’t even want more immigrants from Europe.
Not if you have enough slaves!
(spoiler alert: slavery wasn’t invented by white people!)
“My view is that industrial civilization is a pyramid: if you want a higher apex, you need a broader base. So if we reduce earth’s population to the 2 billion or so Paul Ehrlich and others have identified as the planet’s “natural carrying capacity”, then fairly shortly (2 generations at most), we will be living at roughly the same level of technology as we were when the population was naturally at 2 billion — roughly 1927 according to worldometer.”
Why would we live at the same level of technology as in 1927? Is a smaller population going to throw all their computers away?
With China having the biggest pyramid on the planet, why must they resort to industrial espionage agains the smaller pyramids? Even their mars lander/rover, while it represents excellent quality control, is largely a copy of what we sent to mars over a decade ago.
More population won’t solve problems if they’re educated with a California style math curriculum.
At least Musk is not one of those “do as I say; not as I do” hypocrites so common among the climastrology crowd. He has six children.
Hey Alan, It is likely that Elon may be a regular viewer of WUWT. This is a pretty good place to get the gist of both sides as, well as some serious science which would interest him.
He doesn’t power his Gigafactories with solar or wind. He has placed some solar panels on the roof of his plant in NV. But even at complete build out, it will only supply a small fraction of his needs. And forget about the solar roof tile plant in Buffalo, NY.
He wants to put a desalination plant at his Starbase launch site in TX. Powered by a 300 MW natural gas plant.
At least he can afford to support them properly.
However, I’m reminded of a story about George Eastman, founder of Eastman Kodak. He never had any children. When asked why, he said that his wealth would ruin them if they inherited it, and if he didn’t pass on his wealth they would hate them.
Very Smart Elon, Most very smart people can’t let lies, fear mongering and centralized market/ socialistic solutions go on to cause ginormous global demographic disruption be left untouched by the truth. But the richest man on earth is rich for a reason and the empire is just now getting off the ground. Rapid depopulation paralleling a massive hydrocarbon glut, means there will be no robust transition to electric solutions. Reduced hydrocarbon demand, consumption, means the power of the cartels will dwindle and long term cheap fuel for the few of us that remain in their old age. The result will be dwindling market interest in high-tech infrastructure electrical innovation that imperial Elon envisions. The world of capital markets are grounded in long term projections and depopulation means long term toast for Elon.
Imagine, Texas 2021 30 million is reduced to 2 million by 2121. Think about all those abandoned oil/gas wells and all those internal combustion engines lying round in heaps. It would be the gearhead cowboy version of Australia’s Mad Max. Yee Haw! The dystopic fantasy-noir of 2021 becomes the living nightmare of 2021.
People need actual living committed relationships, actual sex and babies just to be happy. Reduce hope for and the actual presence of actual relationships, actual sex and babies in our every ay lives, then people will die younger and younger hastening depopulation. Mark my words. This is the best reason to cast off lies, cast off fear, cast off virtual crap and forge ahead courageously seeking real life in the real world with real people .
In other words live and let live, for some reason the new forces that be on the planet want no part of that thought process. I say let them eat **it
I’ve noticed that those who dismiss Malthus because the predictions have been evaded tend to worry about federal budget deficits and fiat money leading to hyperinflation even though numerous predictions of disaster have not happened.
Just to be clear, I think budget deficits and a highly leveraged economy based on ever increasing debt will lead to disaster. I also believe the libertarian belief that trade deficits don’t matter is also wrong.
federal budget deficits and fiat money leading to hyperinflation
One difference I see is that we have actual examples of that particular concern coming to pass in other countries.
We also have examples of that particular concern coming to pass in this country.
Those countries did not have the world’s reserve currency that allows excess money creation to be absorbed by overseas users often by paying for cheap overseas products to further limit the effects of inflation. That’s why our trade deficit is actually required. That gives us a longer rope but it is still finite.
Malthus’s predictions weren’t evaded, they were flat out wrong.
As to agricultural advances, they are still advancing and show no sign of slowing down.
I see you are another socialist who believes that unless a prediction comes true by tomorrow morning, that proves it false. BTW, you need to hide your head a little deeper, inflation is growing and will continue to get worse.
Trade deficits don’t matter because they always self correct. The US doesn’t has a trade deficit in physical goods, however a lot of the stuff we sell doesn’t have a physical footprint.
Two of the biggest exports are intellectual services and T-bills, neither of those show up in the “official” trade figures.
I think that the most honest response is that they have not yet happened because technology has allowed humanity to stay ahead of the food requirements. However, that ignores the unintended consequences of environmental degradation, extinction of species, and the psychological consequences of what evolved as hunter gatherers, being confined to ever smaller areas to roam.
If you saw the movie The Truman Show, with Jim Carrey, it raised the interesting philosophical question of how small a cage has to be before the inhabitant realizes they are in a cage.
I am neutral on Elon Musk, but he is starting to win me over with his healthy skepticism of government overreach and big spending ways…
Insane comment from Musk. The world is already over-populated by a factor of 10.
What is the hourly rate of the Tesla bot? No 401K, medical or social security required I know, so it would seem it would have to be cheaper than offshore labor in order to compete.
The conversation in the comments has gotten way off the track today. What is showing? True colors (emotional, fact-free, link-free), available for each of us to see. With apologies to Buffalo Springfield, somethings happening here, and it is becoming clear. People have been divided against each other using tactics as old as the Romans, with a new totalitarianism being touted as the best way forward…but for whom? Don’t be taken in…respect each other here.
Now, regarding Elon Musk: His satellite constellations have impinged my night sky photography in the North Country of New England, and not for the better; however, I am interested in an increasing human population as a possible factor supporting human exploration of space, so I will listen to his words with interest and see if it has any impact on the Bill Gate’s of this world.
Peace!
I thought Musk was going to paint those small, telecommunications satellites black?
The overpopulation narrative dovetails nicely with consumption oriented narcissism to provide a moral justification for shallow and selfish living.
He believes human life is a kind of ponzi scheme
Reset the 0.1%
Less people? What’s not to like?
As someone once said: “Love humanity, hate people.”