I Think It’s Stupid To Think That It Takes Only 98 Healthy People To Sustain A Human Species

So, I’d just finished reading “How many humans would it take to keep our species alive? One scientist’s surprising answer” article and I was amazed that his answer is just only 98 healthy people.  Afterward, I scratched my head in doubts.  Obviously, these 98 people would band together to produce more offsprings so the population could grow larger.  Also, we could imagine that these 98 healthy people are the sole survivors of the planet earth since an apocalyptic event had wiped everyone else off the planet earth.  So, is it true that it would take only 98 healthy people to start the new seed of a lost civilization for generations to come?

I don’t think it is possible for 98 healthy people to redevelop a lost population/civilization!  In my opinion, if an event that could wipe out 99.999 percent of earth’s healthy population, how could we be so sure that the other 98 healthy people would last?  Furthermore, a much smaller group of people is going to be more susceptible to extinction since any number of unfortunate circumstances could reduce this small group into an even smaller group.  Of course, you can argue that these 98 healthy people are special since they survived the apocalypse and got a very good protective shelter such as they’re escaping the planet in a very capable spaceship.  Then again, the universe is so huge which harbors all sorts of danger — how could one know that these people would survive through one generation?

Of course, you could argue that space is very safe for a generation of people who travel in a very capable spaceship to begin a repopulation program which could last for generations to come.  Here I begin to doubt even more!  How could anyone know how long a spaceship would last?  Unless you have a crystal ball, I don’t think you could really know how long a spaceship would last.  I imagine a spaceship got some moving parts and all sorts of things that could go wrong at any moment.  I also imagine that space is a very lonely place, and so these 98 healthy people could suffer all sorts of depression.  It takes only one crazy depressive person to dwindle this group into a smaller group.  Thus, extinction is very near and dear!

I don’t like how one would think it takes only 98 healthy people to repopulate earth or sustain human species because this would encourage the crazies to believe that the other 99.999 percent of earth’s population is dispensable.  My argument is very real for the reasons I stated above.  Basically, I don’t think 98 healthy people could sustain a human species for there are too many variables that could dwindle this small group.  From human emotions to outside variables, any one of these variables that turn negative could greatly reduce this small group.  My answer is that I don’t believe 98 healthy people could actually sustain a human species!

Advertisements

Could Yes Also Mean No? Oh, The Realm Of Probability and Possibility!

I don’t usually think in a mathematical sense but I rather think in a philosophical sense… I think!  Anyhow, I love to wonder about the realm of randomness and probability from time to time.  It’s intriguing to me when I think about how large is the universe; it seems to go on endlessly without a border in sight like how earth got its own boundary.  Thus, I would think — could we ever calculate the possibilities and the probabilities of each possibility and the possibilities of each probability within our own universe?

The universe is so large and so we may not know where it would end so there could be a beginning of something else.  Multiple universes?  We don’t know really!  But I guess scientists out there got their own mathematical formulas and scientific theories to provide them some basics of a foundation to provide many inputs into a computer model so we humans can simulate a known universe.  Nonetheless, what we don’t know may not allow us to calculate what we want and wish to know — that is the beyond!

Quantum computing is gaining innovative developments each day.  This could allow us to have a much more powerful mean to calculate whatever.  I guess we could simulate a known universe in a quantum computer with more ease than how we’re doing with the traditional computer technology.  The question is, can a quantum computer help us sprinkle the probabilities and the possibilities of what is known and what is only a guesswork into our computer models so we could arrive at a point where we may discover more about our own universe?

I even question on the rigidity of theories and known facts because I think to go beyond one must take a risk in traveling the unknown seas — in a time when we have no idea and not a clue of what would lie ahead.  Could the rigidity of theories and facts prevent us from developing more knowledge?  Nonetheless, we cannot just simply enter a magical element into a well-developed computer model to simulate what we truly want to know about the universe, right?

But to think a fish cannot fly could be right on earth, it could be wrong on another planet when everything could fly!  Of course, I truly do not know if there is such a planet.  This is the magical element I’m talking about!  Thus, entering the probabilities and the possibilities of what if as if how we explored the unknown seas back in time.  Right now, our new unknown seas are the new boundaries and borders and stuff within our universe.

I also think if such magical element could help us discover more about the universe, could it allow us to calculate the probabilities and possibilities of a possible future — giving that we’re knowing some known facts and theories that would be married to a magical element or elements?  I guess the quantum computer technology could really help us here.  I skim some texts on probability through the web and they describe probability as events with yes and no such as 1 and 0.  Nonetheless, I question this as I ponder a fish could fly.  Why?  Sometimes, could yes also mean no?

Can The Universe Itself Be A Smart AI According To Some Higher Being’s Design?

In the last blog post “Can Our Universe Expand Forever Or Expand Then Contract Later Just So It Could Die?” I surmised that the universe (our universe among many others) could have been expanding and contracting according to how it got fed with external energy — where such force would have to wander outside our very own singularity.  Without such external nursery of energy, I surmised that our universe is like a quantifiable fish aquarium.  Nonetheless, we all know that even a human being could be intelligibly randomized things at will — thus I think according to the universe we’re sentient beings are the AI (artificial intelligent).  How about let me surmise some more and say that — what if the universe itself is a higher artificial intelligent force in which it could randomize things at will to expand and contract according to circumstances?

We human beings could only see the results of why the universe is expanding and contracting according to our very own whatever theories — but why would the universe do such a thing?  What’s the point of expanding or contracting?  Expanding to create more empty space for what?  Contracting is like a suicidal attempt of killing itself off so the existence of the universe itself would cease to exist.  Furthermore, perhaps the universe itself is like a smart TV or fishbowl/aquarium in which it was designed by a higher being.  This way the purpose of expanding and contracting won’t be the burden with which the universe has to carry.  This burden could be carried by the designer of the universe.

At this point, I think it’s more like a philosophical thinking than anything concrete on this matter, but it’s so intriguing nonetheless.  In my opinion, philosophical or not, it’s rather important for us sentient beings to dig deeper into our origin.  After all, if we could not remember how we’d come into being, then we would forever aimlessly forget about our root and forever lost — wandering in a dark forest (Three Body Problem’s sci-fi trilogy second book is also titled as The Dark Forest).  I think only when we could figure out our true root of how we’d come into the existence, it is then that we could evolve to be something greater.  Perhaps in such a quest, we could discover new technology to bring us to new heights; we could grow into even more capable and intelligent sentient beings.

House versus Whales!

Let’s say a casino is the house and the gamblers are the whales!  The house knows what bait whales love, and so the house would always, in the end, trap the whales.  Nonetheless, among whales, there may be a cunning whale whose ability is to appease the house so the house baits would become foods instead of traps!  Do you think when the house is too confident in its own trap system, the trap system would actually be a trap for the house itself?

Perhaps, the house would always win in the end, but a cunning whale knows the house’s gameplan too well to be caught in the house’s traps.  If the cunning whale isn’t out for blood then the house would always win without knowing it got siphoned from time to time.  Now, if the cunning whale is out for blood the house shall collapse!

I think when a system is too rigid without evolving and a system is too arrogant sometimes could overlook details that would lead to the breakdown of a system.  Furthermore, when a system is appearing to function too well, such a system could lead to a belief that the system is perfect!  The system owner may never realize that their perfect system is also the weakest link to their wellbeing.

The perfect system’s owner would always think that the system is so perfect that there could be no trouble, but I think only a troubled system could be paranoid enough to be self-aware so it could improve over time.  When a troubled system becomes perfect over time, the owner of once a troubled system may, too, become content by the system and would not employ out of the box thinking to improve the system further.  This is when the new owner of a new perfect system would make mistakes.

In conclusion, I think the house may become a big loser when it fails to realize that it needs to continue to devise new tactics and strategies to beat the game!  Of course, whales are whales and so they would take the baits willingly.  Of course, a cunning whale would never be caught in such obvious traps!

Creative Thinking: We’re Just Some Experiments

Countless theories are filling the void of the emptiness we feel whenever we try to think of our origin.  When did we arrive?  How did we first exist?  How on earth had we survived but not the dinosaurs?  We know the dinosaurs existed for sure as we have dug up so many dinosaurs’ skeletons in our backyards.  We then ponder on how the dinosaurs were killed off.  What had killed off the dinosaurs but left us alive?  Or, did we come after the existence of the dinosaurs?  So on and so on we go, and we go off the rail with theory after theory, unsure of ourselves how on earth we really had come about to exist here on earth.

If I remember correctly, one theory suggests that a sizable enough chunk of space rock such as a meteor could have created a large enough impact on earth’s past to wreck so much havoc on earth’s past ecosystem, thus in the process, the monstrous size of the dinosaurs was the death-knell that killed off the dinosaurs.  Basically, the dinosaurs could not sustain their lifeforce while the earth’s ecosystem was in tattered.  Not enough foods were around to sustain the predators like the dinosaurs!

Whatever the theory may be, a meteor or an asteroid, diseases or God’s will, we would never be sure how the dinosaurs were extinct since we weren’t there to witness the hellish catastrophe.  How did we come into being?  It seems the whole human race is still having an amnesia because we don’t remember how we had come into being!

To play this guessing game, I like to suggest the most outlandish, on the par with sci-fi spirit, theory.  Imagine when the earth was still at its most primitive stage.  The dinosaurs were roaming freely.  They would feed on smaller preys and humans weren’t around at all.  Of course, I could imagine how ugly such a scene could be to see a dinosaur gnawing, crunching away on a live human, but luckily I think we weren’t around at the time when the dinosaurs roamed as kings.

My theory suggests an alien race descended onto the planet earth, killed off all dinosaurs, spared the more harmless cockroaches and few other harmless animals so the food sources could lay intact and the earth’s ecosystem could survive to nurse the next king of the planet.  The aliens then would create an out of this world experiment by planting human seeds at our most primitive stage to see how the whole planet earth would develop thereafter.  Perhaps, in the future, the aliens would then revisit our planet earth to check on their amazing experiment.  Would the whole human race survive or die off?  They could make a bet to each other while they’re making their way here on their super cool spaceship.

If anyone is making a movie, I think my theory is rather cool for such a prospect.  Don’t you think so?  Anyway, I think my theory seems to be way cooler than other theories that try to explain how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans came into being on the planet earth!  Of course, my theory is way outlandish and got no proof to back the claim up, but how could you disprove that my theory is wrong when all other theories are just mere theories too.  Remember, we weren’t there when things got really ugly!

 

Basic Income Is Dead. Long Live Basic Equality!

As earth’s population grows larger and automation gains traction each day, how many job categories and niches would dwindle each time before there would be none left for onlookers?  More people mean more jobs are needed to sustain a vibrant society where equality gap could be lessened instead of widening.  More automation means more people will lose jobs.  These two factors are like pouring gasoline onto the fire.

Unethically, such a society could demand people to have fewer children, but such a society needs a strong authoritarian government.  In the West, most governments are democratic, and so such demand would be outrageous.  Furthermore, such a demand is for a weak society, because the society doesn’t have a solution thus resolving into forcing a reduction of population headcount.

A wiser society would not demand a reduction of population headcount — it got a solution for what’s coming!  What solution?  As of now, there is no clear solution for the two detrimental factors I stated in the first paragraph!  By the way, what is a society?  In my opinion, a society is a group of people that stick together for the benefits of the majority.  The two detrimental factors I described earlier would chip away most benefits of the majority in our modern societies.

Few governments and groups are trying out basic income as a testing case for trying to solve the inequality gap between classes of groups of people in our modern societies.  Nonetheless, small-scale basic income test trials most likely won’t yield any good result.  Furthermore, basic income for large countries like the United States and China would be an insane proposition.  No amount of money would be enough to give out to each person in a large country.

I think basic income is kind of screwy too!  For an example, the more money the government prints to give out the more people will spend thus requiring the money printers to print even more money so the government could have enough doughs to give out to even more people.  Get the gist?  Once the government tightens the belt such as stopping giving out money, the basic income scheme would collapse immediately.  A society that is addicted to basic income could also collapse!

By the way, how inflation would work in a basic income society?  I don’t think I know the answer to this as I’ve seen nothing like it has ever applied to a large country like the United States or China.  We all know that if inflation goes north too much everything would become rather pricey because the supply of money is too large — simply put, too many dollars would chase too few demands.

As job loss number increases and automation gains worldwide prominent, the tipping point would become too real when a society becomes desperate and mad.  Nonetheless, as an advanced society could produce just about anything with little effort using automation, the tipping point once again could occur positively as people would no longer require making a living by working the field, factory, office and so forth.

The question is, in the between the transition from a working society to a leisure society, how many people would have to die and how many revolutions would have to occur before the storm could pass and peace could form?  The basic income could work as a dirty solution till the modern society could completely transform into a leisure society!  The question is, will the governments of the world dare to print an unlimited amount of money before inflation hits and destroys the hope and dream of attaining a transformation of a modern society into a leisure one?

Perhaps, basic income is too draconian and would not work.  Perhaps, providing a fair playing field for the newcomers would work?  What do I mean?  Imagine basic income is not basic income but a one-time thing for the poor and the newborns!  What do I mean again?  Well, basic income is too hard to carry out as it requires the governments of the world to continuously print an unlimited amount of money each year.  Instead of basic income, why not basic equality for the poor and the newborns?

What do I mean by basic equality for the poor and the newborns?  Well, let’s say the government would go about to calculate the right amount of money each person needs to have a fulfilling life as long such a person would not do anything too crazy to destroy the money cache quickly such as using drugs, gamble, and whatnot — then a government would give a one-time basic income to all the poor in his/her own country so to provide a fair level of playing field.  Obviously, the rich won’t need any basic income so the government can save money by not giving any to the rich through basic income channel!

Basic equality would save the prudent government a lot of money and yet his/her society would be able to function in a jobless era.  All the newborns could also receive one-time basic income in a form of a trust fund that the government would create for them.  The trust fund would go out to the parents of the newborns for a while till the newborns become adults.  Once the newborns reach adulthood, the government then could give them basic equality (one-time basic income) according to the inflation rate in their time.

Of course, the hope is that the basic equality would buy time for modern societies to transform into leisure societies across the world.  The idea of basic equality, one-time basic income, is to leave nobody behind yet buy time for the governments of the world to see their societies transform into leisure societies where automation would provide everything everyone needs.  When everybody got everything and more, money would become so irrelevant!  In such a society, money won’t buy anything!  In a leisure society, only the smart, funny, easy going, talented ones could become real assets of the world!