Back in the 1990s, thousands of non-devs the world over built "software" using Excel and VBA macros. Devs then spent much of the 2000s rewriting that mess using more robust alternatives. I think this will just be groundhog day all over again: the 2020s is magical miracle AI software-generating software, and the 2030s will be the grown-ups coming back to clean up the dumpster fires.
Maybe. Given how far they've come since 2022, on the one hand, that would be great for the industry and my continued employment but OTOH that, I'm sorry to say, sounds like wishful thinking, tbh. I'd love that just as much as you, because otherwise how am I gonna pay my bills? What's gonna happen if that doesn't materialize though?
"The equal but opposite of the one-child-policy" is easier said than done. A brute-force approach worked for stopping more babies (I don't know if it's true, but what I heard back was that back in the 80s Chinese officials literally killed unauthorised babies moments after they were born - that's probably exaggerated, however they really did carry out forced sterilisations and forced abortions). It wouldn't work so well for creating more babies. You can't force people to have more children. Many countries are offering financial incentives for producing babies right now - cash at birth, free house, free childcare, etc - with limited success. I don't see how China could deliver (hahaha aren't I punny) a significantly different result if it goes down that same road.
"People" here means women, and womens' rights are a very recent thing in world history. With a sufficiently evil and authoritarian government, it might be possible. It certainly has been tried in the 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honour_of_the_German_...
No, people means people. It takes two people to have a child, and the man has the exact same ethical, legal, and financial responsibilities to the child, pretty much everywhere in the world, until the child reaches adulthood. I also don't think conferring some sort of state award or honor on mothers who have multiple children is evil or authoritarian. In general I think it's quite a nice and appropriate idea as having children is ultimately the core civic responsibility of all people. It's literally the only way that a society, and on a larger level - species, can continue to exist.
So 'motivating' people to have more children is rather the opposite of evil, though obviously some means can be more or less ethical. In the short-run children are an economic burden, but in the long-run you have complete and catastrophic collapse, in all ways - including economic, without a surprisingly large number of children. The government that takes short-term wins in exchange for accepting a long-term collapse of a civilization is failing society in every single way. I still don't know if I'd call that 'evil', but it's certainly far closer to it than one that looks to ensure that there's a next chapter for the civilization that it's supposed to be the leader of.
I don't think it'd be especially hard. Ban contraception, economic coercion, mandatory family planning at a certain age and you're probably already there. For the economic coercion part there are endless forms it could take. An obvious one would be a 'national sustainability' tax assessed on the number of children one has (adjusted for minimum age) - 40% for 0, 20% for 1, 0% for 2, - 10% for 3, and so on.
Another way would be to fine companies and local jurisdictions if their average number of children per employee/resident is below 2.1 or whatever, similar in spirit to Japan's 'metabo laws.' You could also require companies prioritize employment, beyond a minimal standard, based on the number of children per employee, and so on.
(That said, I don't know how up to date such maps are, and have no way to verify laws; don't suggest machine translation from Chinese to English, it is bad).
Not that strange, actually, once you understand the geography and ethnography. First of all (although not that significant), straight line distance between the population centres of AU and PNG is further than that of AU and NZ: Sydney to Port Moresby ~4 hours by direct flight, Sydney to Auckland ~3 hours. More significantly, the whole ~1000km length of Cape York Peninsula is one hell of a barrier: virtually uninhabited, no sealed roads most of the way, and extremely inhospitable (cyclones and mass flooding for several months every year, killer crocodiles / jellyfish everywhere, prevalence of dengue fever / malaria).
The Torres Strait Islanders are genetically and culturally part of the peoples of New Guinea, which is why here in Australia we refer to "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples", why the TSIs have their own flag that's different to the Aboriginal flag, etc. We non-indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand share the same predominantly British ancestry, a very similar (and intertwined) colonial / post-colonial history, etc.
In all except the very least-developed countries in the world today, being without electricity for more than a few days would quickly result in significant lawlessness, starvation, and water shortages. So not an "extinction level event", but quite feasibly a "collapse of nation-states as we know them" event.
When you think about it honestly, we really don't know anything about anything. We don't know how many planets there are in the galaxy (nor in the universe, nor in the multiverse, nor if there is a multiverse). We don't know what the chances are of a given planet being habitable (nor what "habitable (for all possible life)" means, nor what "all possible life" means). And we don't know what the chances are of life existing on a given habitable planet. So apart from the fact that all of the above probabilities may well be at or near zero, we're barely even capable of articulating the necessary questions, let alone searching for answers.
reply