discussion Will populations collapse after Ai VR porn gets too realistic?

[Vulky]

Population will collapse because part of our planet will become not suitable for human life. Mass migrations will add to the pile of problems. AI VR won't be for the masses. Do you think overcrowded third world places like Nigeria and India will have to deal with AI Sexbots or intense heat?

 

[MattShizzle]

The problem there may not be the quantity but the quality. We skip natural selection and spread/deepen genetic defects, so we may be irreperable long before that really becomes a problem. At least natural selection will take over once we have a food shortage and only nuts, milk, fruit and vegetables are left to consume ^^

Be better to die than live where there's no meat. Not just genetic defects, but at least here in the US it's the dumb people mostly who have a lot of kids - and has been like that for a couple decades, while the smart people mainly have none or 1. The movie Idiocracy had it right - and we are seeing the results now that the kids of morons are grown.

 

[zakarmmusa832]

I thought I'd never go outside again after I got the Vive on release. Like a month later it was gathering dust on the shelf. I think we just get bored of things/used to things too quick for a non-human ai/vr experience to stay novel enough to have a major impact. End of the day we're going to want a real human being.

 

[Loliholic]

Be better to die than live where there's no meat. Not just genetic defects, but at least here in the US it's the dumb people mostly who have a lot of kids - and has been like that for a couple decades, while the smart people mainly have none or 1. The movie Idiocracy had it right - and we are seeing the results now that the kids of morons are grown.

Lol, as long as there are idiots we still have meat

 

[Freyr]

No. It's already happening. Today you have to choose between to be successful in your 40 or to be at best middle earning dad with family. Very little group have money and family.

I get what you are saying but it's a strange contradiction.

After all, what does "success" really mean?

Being promoted to middle management with your own parking space? Owning a Porsche?

I think in the end having children is much more meaningful than anything else.

If you are an evolutionist (which I am not) it is actually the ONLY thing that matters. Besides survival of the species as a whole of course.

To come back to the topic of AI and sexbots, no matter how advanced they become, they can't provide you with children. For women, finding a sperm donor one way or another might be a partial solution to that (especially when coupled with genetic engineering to remove the "foreign" DNA) but for men it will be very complicated.

 

[MattShizzle]

I get what you are saying but it's a strange contradiction.

After all, what does "success" really mean?

Being promoted to middle management with your own parking space? Owning a Porsche?

I think in the end having children is much more meaningful than anything else.

If you are an evolutionist (which I am not) it is actually the ONLY thing that matters. Besides survival of the species as a whole of course.

To come back to the topic of AI and sexbots, no matter how advanced they become, they can't provide you with children. For women, finding a sperm donor one way or another might be a partial solution to that (especially when coupled with genetic engineering to remove the "foreign" DNA) but for men it will be very complicated.

I don't know. If they were advance enough to be given some sort of eggs with whatever DNA sequence, and an artificial womb, etc..
We're talking decades if not centuries from now for that, though. Sexbots, not AI games, obviously.

 

[TittyCommittee]

I think people who have partners will prefer to have sex with their partner for pleasure, and people without partners will still want to either find one or hook up with a real stranger. If sex were just about physical sensation the population collapse would have happened a long time ago.

Pretty sure no government wants that. They kinda depend on a stable and growing population for, like, everything.

there is truth in this but idk people react differently to everything. maybe we would see collapse in one country like china or japan

 

[AlBetGam]

there is truth in this but idk people react differently to everything. maybe we would see collapse in one country like china or japan

Not sure you'd be able to tell honestly, those countries might well be headed for population collapse without any AI help.

 

[TittyCommittee]

Not sure you'd be able to tell honestly, those countries might well be headed for population collapse without any AI help.

Heading to population collapse and having one is two different things

 

[MattShizzle]

Last I've heard is that people are having less kids due to the high cost of living. There are other factors to this as well.
As for Sexbots and AI, it might contribute to a small amount. I have not seen anyone mention MGTOW either.

If you ask me, the world is overly populated. Far too many useless eaters

What is MGTOW? Don't forget, only rich motherfuckers would be able to afford sexbots anytime soon after invention, and normally they have no problem getting laid for real.

 

[Freyr]

Last I've heard is that people are having less kids due to the high cost of living. There are other factors to this as well.
As for Sexbots and AI, it might contribute to a small amount. I have not seen anyone mention MGTOW either.

If you ask me, the world is overly populated. Far too many useless eaters

Not disagreeing with you but it's interesting to see that in the more wealthy countries, the birth rate is much lower than in the poorer countries.

Even though the cost of living in, say, Switzerland, may be very high, you can hardly argue that the average person in Switzerland is in the end worse off compared to an average person in, say, Nigeria.

Therefore the equasion "income" - "cost of living" = "amount of children" is not valid.

And what is WGTOW?

 

[MattShizzle]

It's been said humans are the only animals that reproduce MORE when resources are scarce.

 

[Impulse 9]

It's been said humans are the only animals that reproduce MORE when resources are scarce.

Hannibal Lecter can probably explain why

 

[AlBetGam]

Heading to population collapse and having one is two different things

Right, but I'm saying that if Japan's population craters in the next 30 years it would be hard to blame AI or VR porn because they were on track for it before either of those things became real.

Not disagreeing with you but it's interesting to see that in the more wealthy countries, the birth rate is much lower than in the poorer countries.

Even though the cost of living in, say, Switzerland, may be very high, you can hardly argue that the average person in Switzerland is in the end worse off compared to an average person in, say, Nigeria.

Therefore the equasion "income" - "cost of living" = "amount of children" is not valid.

I suspect this is because the ratio of expected or standard cost of child-rearing in rich vs poor countries is higher than the actual income ratio.

E.G. a middle class couple in Manhattan wants to have a couple kids. They're thinking "Okay we'll have to take parental leave, that's a year of reduced income. And we'll need to expand our family health insurance, that's higher monthly premiums. Eventually we'll need a bigger apartment so both kids can have their own room, that's an extra $1000 a month in rent. Then we'll need daycare, that's another $1500 a month. And we'll need a car to take them around in. And maybe private school because we want them to get a good education. And then we'll have to pay for college in 18 years. And toys and games clothes and birthday and Christmas gifts" etc. They may make $100K or so but they're anticipating easily that much or more in extra costs.

Meanwhile for a couple in a really poor country a lot of those extra costs might not even be a consideration. "Parental leave? Strap the kid on your back and hit the fields. Daycare? We've got parents and/or older kids, leave the baby home with them. Health insurance? Lol what's that. Where will they sleep? In the bed with their siblings, where else? School? They can go to the village schoolhouse until we need them to work. College? Good one lol.

It's just a totally different set of calculations. The Manhattan couple has way more income but the baseline child-rearing expenses don't rise linearly with that. At least that's my theory.

And what is WGTOW?

MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way. Charitably speaking, it's men who choose not to pursue sex or romance with women for a variety of personal reasons. Uncharitably speaking it's incels ragequitting.

Either way I really doubt there's enough of them to significantly shift population numbers though.

 

[Freyr]

E.G. a middle class couple in Manhattan wants to have a couple kids. They're thinking "Okay we'll have to take parental leave, that's a year of reduced income. And we'll need to expand our family health insurance, that's higher monthly premiums. Eventually we'll need a bigger apartment so both kids can have their own room, that's an extra $1000 a month in rent. Then we'll need daycare, that's another $1500 a month. And we'll need a car to take them around in. And maybe private school because we want them to get a good education. And then we'll have to pay for college in 18 years. And toys and games clothes and birthday and Christmas gifts" etc. They may make $100K or so but they're anticipating easily that much or more in extra costs.

Meanwhile for a couple in a really poor country a lot of those extra costs might not even be a consideration. "Parental leave? Strap the kid on your back and hit the fields. Daycare? We've got parents and/or older kids, leave the baby home with them. Health insurance? Lol what's that. Where will they sleep? In the bed with their siblings, where else? School? They can go to the village schoolhouse until we need them to work. College? Good one lol.

That's fair enough but in the end both reasonings are faulty.

A better reasoning would be to make the most of the situation at hand and not overthink it. The couple in Manhattan could move to a cheaper neighbourhood and use the money they save on rent / mortgage on their children. These children would still be better off than the children in the second example even if it would not be instagram perfect.

Although if I have to choose between those two I actually prefer the African example over the Manhattan example.

 

[AlBetGam]

That's fair enough but in the end both reasonings are faulty.

A better reasoning would be to make the most of the situation at hand and not overthink it. The couple in Manhattan could move to a cheaper neighbourhood and use the money they save on rent / mortgage on their children. These children would still be better off than the children in the second example even if it would not be instagram perfect.

Although if I have to choose between those two I actually prefer the African example over the Manhattan example.

Absolutely, they could. And really, most of the stuff I listed isn't anything they have to do- they could move to a cheaper area, have their kids share a room, drop them off at Grandma's on the way to work, send them to a good public school for free, etc. And I know a lot of parents do. But the point is that's the kind of calculus an American middle-class couple is making, and it's not likely to encourage people to have several kids. Which I think is why so people in higher-income countries decide to just get a dog instead, or if they do have kids stop at just one.

 

[LakeCreature]

Really? ... but.. why?

Some people/politicians have adopted the Thanos style of thinking:
Less people means less resources consumed, less impact on environment
I mean I care about the environment and all that, but those people are too far gone

 

[Freyr]

Absolutely, they could. And really, most of the stuff I listed isn't anything they have to do- they could move to a cheaper area, have their kids share a room, drop them off at Grandma's on the way to work, send them to a good public school for free, etc. And I know a lot of parents do. But the point is that's the kind of calculus an American middle-class couple is making, and it's not likely to encourage people to have several kids. Which I think is why so people in higher-income countries decide to just get a dog instead, or if they do have kids stop at just one.

Indeed.

What I find strange is that these supposedly intelligent and highly educated people are making this choice.
And I wonder why they make it.

To me it is obvious that having children will be the only lasting thing that many of us do.
It's certainly more important than gathering a lot of worldly possessions which you don't really need and which will be given to some distant relative or to charity after you die.
Most of these so-called "successful" people are not nearly so successful that literally anybody will remember them in a hundred years or so.

 

[MattShizzle]

@MattShizzle @Freyr

MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way

Ask yourselves. How does women of today treat men? How does society treat men?

This is why you do your own research instead of relying on people. This person below does not know what MGTOW is. Likely they took the opportunity to push their false narrative on MGTOW. The internet has a lot of misinformation and propaganda. Way too much censorship. Wikipedia should also not be your source of info, it is corrupted and compromised.

Men and society, at least in the US treat women WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY worse than women or society treat men...

 

[USER_6969]

Quickly booting up any real-time interactive fantasy (your neighbor's daughter, your first girlfriend, furry alien futa orgy whathaveyou etc.) and experiencing it as indistinguishable from real, will make it very hard for men to avoid the temptation, and even harder to quit the habit.

Actually realistic android sexbots will also become reality eventually, although probably prohibitively expensive for most people. But cheaper dolls used in combination with Ai augmented reality overlay will fulfill wild fantasies.

Something like 35% of men under 30 are virgins, where it was just 4% only 15 years ago. This is due to all the infinite broadband porn options available freely to everyone.

Are people across the world are reproducing waaay below replacement rate.

What will happen in 50 or 100 years when this ai/VR porn advances by several orders of magnitude?

Will 75%+ of the male population just give up on finding wives?

Sounds like it could be cataclysmic for civilization and economies globally.

I don't care about the world population in 50 years from now, because I will not be around. I doubt that I will live long enough to be over a 100 years old.