1 Jacob Adjusted For Inflation (JAFI)

[Jean]

If you don't wan't kids, you think that the future enjoyement by the world of the company of indivudals whose development has been led by your genes isn't worth the effort of transmitting them.
But then, for what reason should present world suffer your company, as you are probably as bad as your kid would have been?
I equate kid with existing after your current body is dead, but if existence isn't worth in the future, why would it be worth now?
It is also equivalent to say that all your ancestors were wrong in bringing you into existence, altough one could argue that life works by trial and error, and that error is a part of success.
I don't wan't you to have kids, they would take up ressources that my future kids could use, or maybe i want you to have kids, so that my kids would enjoy their company, altough probably very indirect. I just don't know you enough to know what would be in their best interest to know in which direction i should try to influence you. I just think that not wanting kid is not a logical position, and would enjoy the intellectual challenge that would arise from being proven wrong about it.

[AxelHeyst]

You might be missing a third option, which is that some people don't arrive at the decision to not have kids due to any kind of logical process at all (faulty or otherwise). They just don't *feel* like having kids, and then don't think about the issue wrt their own life choices much one way or the other. A small percentage of the population fails to be transmitted the MAKE BABIES imperative and so, sometimes, these people just don't.

[OutOfTheBlue]

Too many assumptions (like an arbitrarily separate self that is somehow bound by both biological imperatives and the absurd need to be a logical actor, or like worthiness being dependent on something else than pure existence but also attached to self replication, etc.) to arrive at a reductionist/binary line of reasoning that cannot see beside itself.

For a philosophical stance on suicide, see the myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus.

For the rest, please question your assumptions to allow for something broader.

[bos]

I personally think the question on having kids or not is way too big for humans to gasp. Humans don’t seem to be very good at asking—or at least answering—the big questions anyway. The question on having kids was never an option for most of our existence. The question was, do you have sex? That question is much easier answered. Kids was a side effects and as soon as that happened the hormones and instinct will take over to do the rest. But there is no doubt that in today's age it's a much tougher job. It's a mix of communities falling away and increasing cost to name just two. Challenges where an ERE philosophy can help.

The good thing is. You don't know what you don't know. You can be super happy without kids - even if you would have been happier with them.

I can recommend the piece of Paul Graham on him having kids. Quite famous in the tech community.
https://paulgraham.com/kids.html

[zbigi]

A small percentage of the population fails to be transmitted the MAKE BABIES imperative and so, sometimes, these people just don't.

Not that small anymore. For example, in Germany, rate of childlessness (*) is already at 20%. Given that it's measured in women born in 1970s, it may be way higher for current generations, once they reach infertility age and we can measure it.


(*) Measured by the rate of childless women amongst all women aged 45-49.

[Jean]

@Bos
I was about to make this exact same argument. Making babies was never a decision we evolved to make instinctively, beyond our choice of sexual partner, therefor, we cannot resort on our instinct to make this decision.

[delay]

I really don't see how the argument for not having child can be reached without premises that also lead to an argument for killing humans, including oneself.

The fact that humans keep producing non-reproducing humans is a hint that non-reproducing humans can add something to society. Reproduction is not the only useful thing a human can do.

Perhaps it pays off to have experimental humans and select them for reproduction only if they succeed. Perhaps certain functions are better performed by non-reproducing humans (like medieval monks.) Or perhaps society has outgrown its available resource base, and needs to shrink, requiring restrictions on reproduction. These humans can still do work, like helping to grow food for reproducing humans.

What do you think of this argument for not killing non-reproducing humans?

[jacob]

It is true that DNA (or RNA) that doesn't replicate very effectively doesn't last long. Indeed, one of the core definitions of life is the ability to replicate. One might think of the first cell as a more effective "bag" of DNA replicating material. Likewise, multi-celled plants and animals, like humans, as even more effective replicators of the DNA they hold. A human bag of DNA has the ability to replicate the DNA in its body for a good 70+ years ... and also to have sex and create a new bag with half(*) its DNA to live on.

The evolution of [self-]consciousness in humans (and perhaps some other animals) have made them (us) more effective at replicating our DNA than most other species (types of DNA bags).

However, the evolution of consciousness has also made it possible to question AND choose whether our function is to serve our DNA or the other way around. This ability to deliberately choose to replicate our DNA is what sets us apart from most if not all other animals. From our DNA's perspective, the evolution of consciousness is a bit of a double-edged sword. It both makes us more effective at replicating our specific DNA, but it also allows us to choose not to. Those of us who chose not to have children essentially screwed over our particular DNA combination... after millions of years, it ends here with our eventual personal death. But not to worry, DNA that is 99.5%+ similar to our specific combination lives on in other humans. With 8 billion humans, our DNA has plenty of backup.

Humans do something that few other animals (apes and whales) have been shown to do. We also transmit and replicate ideas, culture, and ideology between each other much like we transmit DNA to our offspring. The ability to speak, write, and be heard and understood across the valley or even across the globe makes modern humans far more effective in transmitting ideas and spreading their ideology than they are by having a handful of children and just telling their ideas to them. It's possible for someone with a radio to reach more people in an hour than even the most proliferate human can have children in a lifetime.

In that regard, I note that the most ideologically dominant cultures in the world are all characterized by low fertility rates. There's practically an iron law in socioeconomics that greater wealth and education leads to lower fertility. ("The most effective kind of birth control is women's education."). In general, greater affluence like wealth and education also leads to greater influence. It is this combination that makes low fertility countries (and people or groupings of people) more likely to transmit their ideology to the next generation and thus ideologically dominant. As such ideology follows its own kind of evolution as ideas replicate in human minds.

People with many children will likely have descendants hundreds of years from now who have the same chin, eyebrows, or allergies, but mostly likely those descendants will be thinking thoughts that were propagated by those with wealth and/or education and statistically fewer or no children. It is now the extremely rare family (set of bags of DNA) who still follows the ideas of one of their long dead personal ancestors.

(*) The fact that humans procreate by having sex also means that your particular DNA contribution to your descendants very quickly gets watered down. Your children will only have 1/2 of your DNA coding. Your grandchildren will have 1/4 ... great-grandchildren 1/8, ... then 1/16 and then 1/32 and 1/64 and then 1/128 at which point the remaining fraction is equal to the random variation within the human species---IOW, after some seven generations, you can't even tell for sure if a particular person was your ancestor or vice versa (at least as far as I understand how it works).

[black_son_of_gray]

I mean, the arguments about DNA and consciousness and human logic and reason with respect to reproduction aren't wrong...but the assumptions built into the @Jean's premise aren't even accurate for bacteria.

It is often hypothesized that bacteria that are superior competitors when resources are abundant must be inferior competitors when resources are scarce, and vice versa. Most previous studies that sought to test this trade-off hypothesis compared kinetic parameters of extant strains of bacteria, with mixed results. We employed an experimental approach in which bacterial populations were propagated for many generations under two distinct regimes and their evolutionary responses were monitored. Thirty-six populations of bacteria were allowed to adapt evolutionarily to either abundant (batch culture) or scarce (chemostat culture) resource regimes. The competitive fitness of each derived line, relative to its ancestor, was then measured under both regimes. The trade-off hypothesis predicts that adaptation to either selective regime causes a concomitant loss of fitness under the alternative regime. Overall, our findings failed to support this hypothesis, and several cases contradict it. Only two derived lines showed clear trade-offs, having significantly adapted to the selective regime while becoming significantly less fit in the alternative regime. By contrast, five derived lines significantly improved in the alternative regime even as they adapted to their selective regime. Summing over all 36 derived lines (including those for which the observed fitness changes were nonsignificant under one or both regimes), 15 cases support the trade-off hypothesis, whereas 21 indicate the opposite result. These data therefore refute the necessity, or even general tendency, for evolutionary trade-offs in performance under conditions of resource abundance vs. scarcity. Instead, these data suggest that bacteria are able to adapt to a particular level of resource via multiple evolutionary pathways, which may produce either gains or losses in fitness at some different level of resource.

Taken from an article I managed to find after an astounding 30 seconds of looking.

Why should it be taken as fact that maximizing offspring in the subsequent generation is the "best" or even "desirable" strategy? Or that it is the raison d'etre for anything? It's as though trade-offs don't exist...

[suomalainen]

If you don't wan't kids, you think that the future enjoyement by the world of the company of indivudals whose development has been led by your genes isn't worth the effort of transmitting them.

I don’t think that at all. You seem to think “[behavior] means [intention]”, but it just isn’t so. Your thought is merely your thought. FWIW, I think I’m god’s gift to this world, and frankly the world doesn’t deserve me or my offspring. I don’t want kids because I’d rather be doing other things. What the world enjoys is literally of no concern to me at all.

I just think that not wanting kid is not a logical position, and would enjoy the intellectual challenge that would arise from being proven wrong about it.

Again, your thought is your thought. I can’t prove you wrong as you are entitled to your opinion. But opinions differ.

[ohcanada]

It is an indisputable fact that humans will gladly kill others for more of the pie.

While a highly intelligent physicist can argue doom is coming and not have children, by definition the majority of the population is relatively stupid. Relatively. Even if they on some level grasp the argument, they will not behave that way.

Instead you will have more less intelligent people long-term.

Eventually this dynamic would reach the point of broad scale failure to maintain the advanced technology which enables the current excess population.

The problem will be “solved” by itself, but cause a great deal of suffering until then.

[DutchGirl]

Can we steer this thread back to discussions on what the JAFI looks like in 2024? Perhaps?
Maybe make a new thread to discuss whether or not one should have children?

[guitarplayer]

Using the calculator from OP we have

YEAR JAFI
2007 $7,000
2008 $7,269
2009 $7,243
2010 $7,362
2011 $7,594
2012 $7,751
2013 $7,865
2014 $7,992
2015 $8,002
2016 $8,103
2017 $8,275
2018 $8,432
2019 $8,631
2020 $8,738
2021 $9,148 (I think the calculator has gotten updated between the last OPs update and now - this is the current figure)
2022 $9,880
2023 $10,287
2024 $10,628

[theanimal]

@Jin and Guice and I have been extensively discussing the idea of the eco-Jacob and have found ourselves wondering if the right measures are being used to calculate the global number. PPP has been briefly addressed a few times in this thread, but I’m not sure it’s been given full credit as to why it’d be better metric to use for calculating an eco-Jacob in lieu of nominal GDP. GDP is generally a macro statistic, used to compare countries and show the raw size of their economy in global financial terms but does not reflect difference in living costs. GDP Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) on the other hand is based on what people can actually buy, adjusting for local prices and the cost of living, removing the effect of currency strength or weakness by using a standardized basked of goods and services.

There seemed to be some confusion earlier in the thread that using PPP would somehow uphold the current global structure, where US and other western nations live lavishly while poorer countries do not. If a regional number is advocated for, I could see that being the case, but not so with international GDP PPP as it is one number for everyone.

PPP does have some limitations as it only acknowledges financial capital and does not acknowledge societal, cultural, and regulatory differences between countries. As a result, someone in a place like Mexico or Honduras can live a far more lavish life on say $8,000 PPP than someone in a place like Chicago, IL. Despite this, PPP seems to be much more conducive to comparing individuals.

To put it into numbers, as of 2023 international GDP PPP was 185 trillion dollars.

Divided by (8 billion people times 1.7 overshoot factor)

Which leaves us with roughly $13,600 for an eco-Jacob.

Updated to change wrong initial overshoot number

[AxelHeyst]

Isn't the overshoot factor 1.7? Earth overshoot day was Aug1, which is .58 of the year and 1/.58 = 1.72 or so? (which would mean 1 ecojacob is more like $14k).

[theanimal]

I'm sure you're correct. I was just going off memory which was probably wrong. In that case,

GDP PPP 185 Trillion divided by (8 billion people times 1.7 overshoot)

is ~$13,600

[AxelHeyst]

Well awesome, then one of my goals for 2025 has just magically been achieved. High five!

So is what you're saying that if, ignoring potential system-effects of this change, if you gave everyone $14k/yr, and they converted that to whatever their local currency is, and spent it, then everyone would be eating an equal and non-overshoot amount of the Gaia pie? (trying to wrap my head around gdp vs gdp ppp etc).

[theanimal]

Well awesome, then one of my goals for 2025 has just magically been achieved. High five!

Happy to be of service! I'll get an invoice ready.

--
Adjusting by currency would be what you would do for a number that's calculated with nominal GDP. If you only adjust by currency, you still are not adjusting for cost of living within the respective countries and adjusting for what can be bought (resources used). PPP has it's own conversion factor based on comparative price levels, currency exchange rates, and cost of living adjustments.

The PPP conversion factor and currency exchange rate are pretty similar in some cases, and stark in others. If the PPP conversion factor is greater than the exchange rate of the country, than the local currency is undervalued and it's cheaper to live there. Vice versa for the opposite.

This table provides some examples for the above.



Edited to remove confusing table

[Jin+Guice]

@theanimal beat me to the punch, but this amendment is inspired by a discussion we had off forum.

If the question we are trying to answer is "what is the global median resource consumption, adjusted for overshoot, expressed in USD?" then, to the best of my knowledge, the number should be calculated in PPP dollars.

PPP is to between country spending what inflation is to between time period spending.


P.S. I don't think that anyone should increase their spending because of this. I do think we should congratulate ourselves for rocking even more cock than we previously thought we were.

[AxelHeyst]

Okay, I'm not afraid to look dumb.

If I spend 14k/yr, that's a globally equitable and sustainable [eta: sustainable is such a useless word. I should have written 'globally equitable and one-earth level of consumption] slice of pie? (putting aside for now all the nitpicks).

If I'm talking with an Indian, a chinese guy, and a person from Norway, we're all eating exactly the same slice of pie if I spend 14k$, the Indian spends 680$ (but in rupees), the chinese guy spends 3k$, and the norwegian spends 1,360$?