[nathanbedford]

Every advance in human history has been driven by population growth – from the industrial revolution to the computer age. But what happens when people stop having children? Then we enter what used to be called on Medieval maps terra incognita – unknown territory. I fear the author has inverted the truth and put the cart before the horse. Neither the industrial revolution nor the computer age were not "driven by population growth" rather the Industrial revolution increased agricultural productivity which fed (literally) population growth.

I don't believe anyone reading this will seriously argue that increased population drove the computer age. In fact, there is some argument to be made that the computer age has had the effect of reducing population.

As to the medieval age, the author might rethink his premise if he reflects on the Black Death which depopulated much of the known world, especially Europe, resulting in many positive developments such as increase in wages and standard of living of peasants because their labor had become scarce and demanded better remuneration. The Black death reduced population yet delivered an "advance in human history."

Wars for conquest of land and imperialism in general were often driven by the belief that growing populations needed to feed themselves from their neighbors bounty. Native Americans might argue that not only good things come from population growth. In the modern age we can cite urban sprawl as the negative consequence of population growth.

Too many assertions in this article are blandly made without proof. We shall see whether we need all these workers in the age of robots and artificial intelligence to produce goods and services. We shall see in an age of advanced medical science and wonderful new inventions whether we need more consumers or whether consumers will simply consume more goods and services and, for example, health care. Maybe we will just live better enslaving robots in a wonderful new age of artificial intelligence and marvelous materials.

This trope of Peter Zaihan in which everything turns on population might have some merit but have a care, the Chinese are learning all about the unintended consequences of trying to shape demography by government fiat.

Let God do it.

[hopespringseternal]

The statement that “every advance ... driven by population growth” is one sentence in the article and hardly the main point.

While it may have been clumsily stated, there is a very real way in which population enables technology: Even fairly simple items ultimately require large numbers of people, even several large industries in the current forms. Consider the pencil example often used.

Then consider everything that has to come together for something complicated like a computer or a car. All the knowledge in the world won’t help you if you can’t gather enough people to produce the thing.

Reduce the population to preindustrial levels and you are going to find that is largely the technology you wind up with.

Also, a large population provides the capital needed to industrialize and the market to justify it. Even though there is no technology to speak of in a pencil, no one needs to mass produce them if 20 miles is a days ride and there are only a few thousand people living in the thousand square miles you have easy access to.

A very large population is necessary to have the very few people at the right of the bell curve with the right combination of intelligence and initiative to accomplish great things.

[Clutch Martin]

“Every advance in human history has been driven by population growth – from the industrial revolution to the computer age.”

That’s probably a very small piece of the pie chart. Perhaps it’s the bigger slice then we can imagine with the historical markers we’re left working with presently.

Geological markers reveal many more catastrophic extinction events that modern science and theorists alongwith their egos are willing to abdicate.

[Cronos]

Actually, the advances have been more about population density - more people gathered together, sharing information and brainstorming.

So... cities

Hunter-gatherers grouped together at places like Gobekli Tepe - leading to agriculture.

Agriculture lead to people banding together in cities in Egypt, in Sumeria, in the Indus valley, in the Yangtze valley which led to more developments.

Then the megacities of Rome, Hastinapur, Xi’ang etc. became thought incubators.

It is population density more than just population that drives this innovation.

One could also argue that the internet has reduced us all to one village — today I may have a call with a group including people from Sydney, Singapore, Tokyo, Toronto, Berlin, Warsaw, Praetoria, Montevideo, Dallas and a village in Montana — and that’s a “population density” for brainstorming.