Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rhueh t1_j7q3wh9 wrote

I was going to say 100 million, based on Arthur C. Clarke estimate from many years ago. (Which turns out to have been based on an analysis by Fred Hoyle, which I didn't know before today.) But my memory is obviously quite faulty because the Clarke/Hoyle number was 100 thousand, not 100 million! That seems low to me, but the number can certainly be much lower than today's population, once our technology is sufficiently advanced.

4

strvgglecity t1_j7qhjet wrote

Once technology is self sustaining, the answer becomes 0. No humans will be needed for earth creatures to pursue scientific discovery.

2

Rhueh t1_j7qi90p wrote

Hm... I suppose it all hinges on what someone means by "preserving modern civilization." Does civilization being completely taken over by machines constitute "preserving" it? I can see a case either way.

But, yes, assuming we allow a civilization of machines to be consistent with "preserving modern civilization" then, you're right, the answer to the exact question asked would be zero.

1

strvgglecity t1_j7qj3qm wrote

Yea. If by "civilization" they mean an assortment of creatures producing goods and ideas, consuming resources, altering ecosystems and reproducing, then humans aren't required at all.

1

Rhueh t1_j858n1q wrote

Ironically, from an economic perspective a machine civilization has a big problem: Machines are far better at creating than they are at consuming. A machine civilization might well develop into a single machine that can maintain itself. What use would a second machine be?

2