Background: Prof @RobinHanson has suggested that he thinks that the future of the West involves population decline for relatively-secular groups like, well, the average user of this website, compared to more religious groups:

"While previously my default vision of the future was a standard economists’ rapidly-growing socially-integrated world, my default vision now has a several century economic decline and innovation pause starting in ~40 years. Global population will fall, only to rise again due to the growth of insular high-fertility subcultures (e.g., Amish, Orthodox Jews) who suffer little for resisting absent innovation. Much like how fertile Christians came to dominate a declining Roman Empire. Such insular subcultures will likely discard many values and innovations that we now hold dear. Yes there are off chances that we’ll develop strong longevity or human level AI before this tech pause, or that world elites will see and fix fertility problems."

Personally, I find this not intuitive -- to me, a world where there are many more Orthodox Jews has many more non-Orthodox Jews as well, due to a significant fraction of folks born Orthodox ultimately pursuing other ways of embodying their Jewish identities. (E.G., one of the communities I pray in regularly has many folks who were raised Orthodox, but currently follow more-"traditional egalitarian" Jewish paths).

I also think there are many possible worlds where Western fertility increases again, due to e.g., YIMBY groups reducing the cost of family-friendly housing, and that non-Orthodox Jews would be buoyed along by those rising tides as well disproportionately relative to Orthodox Jews.

The Bounty topic: What should be the question I ask to this prediction market to measure this?

500 Mana in total bounty, awarded 100 per a) great proposed draft question or b) smart comments convincing me that the question is ill-framed.

(If Robin Hanson comments, he is of course eligible for the bounty.)

Note: I would want a "resolves N/A if AI eats us all" or similar escape clause such that we don't have to worry about that.

Further note: I am uncertain as to whether we should have a N/A for tech innovations like massive life extension, uterine replicators, robo-nannies, etc. -- plausibly those change the relative math much like the YIMBY example above, but I am uncertain as to whether I think that's inside the spirit of the question or outside of it. Open to comments arguing either way.

https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/turn-the-ship-or-abandon-it

Turn the Ship, or Abandon It

I’ve often mocked science fiction stories set centuries in the future, yet with stable tech not much more advanced than our own, especially when they have big successful subgroups who resist innovation. I’ve also mocked stories (and actual plans) wherein some small group purposely cuts itself off from the larger world, and then expects to beat that larger world in a fair fight. (Like Captain Nemo or Bond villains.) Don’t they know that tech has consistently accelerated for at least a million years, is changing fast now, and is expected to change even faster soon? Or that it has long been the whole world that is powerful together, not small isolated parts?