[ExI] How new AI economics might change our systems

[Stuart LaForge]

On 2026-09-21 15:41, Keith Henson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 2:13 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
> https://theconversation.com/there-was-a-decline-of-male-diversity-when-humans-took-to-agriculture-38725
>> 
>> This runs counter to your claim because the advent of agriculture
>> brought about an huge increase in resources instead of scarcity
>> enabling
>> the development of cities fed by farms, but nonetheless resulted in
>> the
>> killing of 95% of all male humans.
> 
> Agriculture, settled life instead of nomadic, hugely increased the
> birth rate and the number of surviving children resulting in a fast
> growth of population and resource crisis for farmable land in a few
> generations.

Ok, let's assume a fast growth of population that sponged up all the 
abundant new food and caused a shortage of farmland. Why would only 5% 
of men participate in that temporary bounty and population explosion? Or 
why would only 5% of men survive the overshoot of carrying capacity? 
Keep in mind that almost 100% of women survived it. It is such a 
striking disparity that I had to wonder if aliens were selectively 
breeding us and simply culled the males with undesirable traits. Rafal 
Smigrodski talked me out of that notion, but how or why would xenophobic 
memes and warfare over scarce resources favor 5% of men above all others 
while being completely unbiased toward women?

> They were not exactly nomadic, but the bushmen had a
> lifestyle similar. They were a decade or so back force into
> settlements. I have not looked it up, but would not be surprised if
> the number of children per woman has gone up. It was just at
> population replacement level.

I would not be surprised if fertility amongst these bushmen had gone up 
in the settlements. I would be very surprised if a mere 5% of the men 
were fathering that population boom.

> 
>> So maybe it is back to territorial
>> tribalism even in the presence of abundant resources? Also consider
>> John
>> Calhoun's Universe 25 experiment where there was abundant food and
>> water, but nonetheless the mice were very violent toward one
>> another.
> 
> It is possible that mice sense a high population density as a sign
> that a resource crisis is about to happen and react violently, driving
> some of them to leave. The Calhoun situation is nothing you would
> expect in nature. Humans seem to be very different from mice or you
> would see dense cities being much more violent places.

But, if the mice use population density as an indicator of resource 
scarcity in contradiction to the facts of the situation, then it is 
population density that is the driver of war rather than scarcity. Or 
perhaps, in a more nuanced fashion, competition drives a small subset of 
a population to hoard abundance and *create* scarcity for the rest of 
the population.

Stuart LaForge