The Corporation will be Google but it doesn't have to be. (Used only as example)

Google have used their data to create an algorithm which is able to predict which answers sites and videos (YouTube) will cause which behavior change for every person that uses their services for at least once a week.

As Google usually sees their view as the best and try to apply these concepts to every user they tray to regulate population growth.

What would be the least amount of people while still enabling Google and large scale research in science to exist?


put on hold as too broad by Gryphon, Cyn, L.Dutch Jan 12 at 19:10

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Science has a speed? How do you measure "the rate science is going"? Also, there's a huge disconnect between your title and your question. $\endgroup$ – Abigail Jan 12 at 17:21
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry no of course science has no speed what i meant was the amount of people researching but i somehow couldn't formulate it till now. $\endgroup$ – Soan Jan 12 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ Where is the disconnect again? would be helpful so I can fix it. $\endgroup$ – Soan Jan 12 at 17:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ (1) Never forget that we have a Sandbox. (2) We need a clear definition of what you mean by "depleting resources." It could be legitimately argued that we are not depleting resources today. It could also be argued that we are. (3) Technological growth is fickle to measure. 99.9% of the world's technology has been developed only in the last 150 years. The growth rate appears to be exponential - but so does our population growth rate. It wouldn't be surprising if the two were connected. (*continued*) $\endgroup$ – JBH Jan 12 at 18:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (4) In the end, there may not be a single number that will make any sense or have any consensus of agreement. You may not really want one. What is your preference? Are you a glass-half-empty kind of person, or a glass-half-full one? Invent some flattering technobabble (call it the "JBH Socio-Technology Critical Population Limit") and use it to justify a perspective. This planet is failing because it's exceeded the limit while another is not. At that point you never need define (or defend) an actual number - just an ideology. Much simpler. $\endgroup$ – JBH Jan 12 at 18:55