Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6254551" data-attributes="member: 8461">Instinct versus science, round two. Fight!That's not really relevant to what's there. The idea that humans would leave the Earth at some point would adjust the particulars of the DA only in that it'd increase the total capacity for how many humans would be alive at once (e.g. 20 billion people collectively supported across two planets, rather than 10 billion people supported across one). In that case, you simply adjust the calculations and modify the final results accordingly.It's not an inevitability by the terms of the article, just a likelihood (e.g. 95%). Given that it's plausible to state that only a finite number of humans will be born - rather than an infinite number - the premise of the article certainly seems reasonable.I'd say that it's option B, since it's not particularly concerned with questions of how humans would theoretically come to an end. It is, as you note, a purely mathematical construct, which is sort of the point. If you presume (as noted above) that there won't be a unlimited number of humans, then it's a question of trying to make a construct to guess how many there will be, and working backwards from there.I suspect that the hubris is in assigning humanity "infinite possibilities of the future" and in presuming that even loose models of statistical analysis don't apply to us, but that's just me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification