Hypothetically, would it be better to triple the number of humans to have the resources to build sustainable technology to save the planet, or would it be better to cap/limit the number humans in order to slow the damage we are doing? Discuss
-
I don't think you realize that you or I could be an "Elon". Its a matter of will power plus some variables, not innate genius. Just look at the populations of the Netherlands, Israel, or India. 3x/30x more or less humans does not have an effect on this equation.
You made 3 points. First is wrong. Second is right. Third is wrong; talent is bell curved. If, as you say, more people can be Elon than people think, then increasing population increases the number of Elon’s by increasing the population of those who can be. 70 IQ cannot be Elon.
-
-
Talent, SATs, GPAs, IQ may follow a bell curve but talent is not directly correlated to output. People can do big things if they have the willpower to do so. If your logic were correct, the largest organization would be the best at achieving a particular mission. Not true.
-
I’m interested in your argument and I believe in ideas like the Pareto principle, but I don’t believe more people equals better results. Firms like McKinsey drop their bottom 10% YoY so the middle of their curve increases as well.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.