It's not just theoretical, as I'll share in 2 days in the premium article. The belief that this isn't possible affects at least 25% of people who want to have children!
You disagree but don't point at why. I made my arguments, either break them or accept them. Otherwise, you hold your beliefs as dogma!
It's not just theoretical, as I'll share in 2 days in the premium article. The belief that this isn't possible affects at least 25% of people who want to have children!
You disagree but don't point at why. I made my arguments, either break them or accept them. Otherwise, you hold your beliefs as dogma!
I'm not arguing that it isn't possible, I am saying that it is unlikely to happen given current birth rate trends, we are far more likely to peak at 10B than 100B.
GDP per capita does not have to shrink if the population stops growing. Income, spending, and investment can increase from new technology, better capital goods, and increased productivity. Deregulation particularly in areas like real estate and other overregulated industries can create growth. In the long term, extraterrestrial colonies can grow the economy and overall population by increasing trade.
There are countries today that have or will soon have declining populations and are still able to have a functioning society with a good quality of life even if they are growing slower than countries with faster population growth. Correlation is not causation. Just because population growth increased along with life expectancy, and less extreme poverty does not mean it caused these changes.
The point is that GDP per capita has grown at least partially through growth in humans. If you shrink instead of growing, suddenly you transform a tailwind into a headwind. You will be poorer than you would have been regardless. You bring up that maybe we are not poorer in absolute terms. Hopefully you're right. I read something about this. I should find it again.
Agreed that humans elsewhere is a good way to keep growing the economy. My point is not to say "OMG we absolutely need to superpopulate the Earth" but rather "Chill out, we can grow for centuries and still be fine".
The countries you mention (eg Japan) are doing OK (not great!) in part because the rest of the world keeps growing
Factor in global debt / QE and you'll see that GDP growth and human prosperity has been built on economic sand. About 80% of historical healthcare improvement and longevity is down to clean water, sanitation and vaccines. The rest is mainly treating diseases caused by the progress you're touting. You fail to mention the impact of religion on populations. Also, you conflate agricultural land use and the natural environment for feeding a city. City populations don't feed themselves. Finally, you fail to distinguish, contrast (or even mention) the urban sprawl of many major American cities, plus Tokyo and Moscow, with the less developed but high-density cities of Jakarta, Delhi, Manila, Mumbai, Mexico City, Cairo, Sao Paulo, Bangalore, Nairobi etc. The residents of the slums in the latter group could provide a better lesson in the future of any mass population growth or movement to megacities. The American decrease in longevity and Japanese, Russian, Italian, Polish etc decrease in fecundity are also trends that are dominating genuine demographics rather than anthropocentric utopian fantasies that seem born straight out of the late 1960s. We haven't walked on the moon for over half a century. Antibiotic resistance is increasing to lethal levels. The next influenza pandemic will make Covid seem like a picnic ('flu vaccines are typically only 40% effective). Humans don't live in a world disconnected from nature. Pollinator decline alone could starve us as a species. So a dose of realism would be very welcome.
It's not just theoretical, as I'll share in 2 days in the premium article. The belief that this isn't possible affects at least 25% of people who want to have children!
You disagree but don't point at why. I made my arguments, either break them or accept them. Otherwise, you hold your beliefs as dogma!
I'm not arguing that it isn't possible, I am saying that it is unlikely to happen given current birth rate trends, we are far more likely to peak at 10B than 100B.
GDP per capita does not have to shrink if the population stops growing. Income, spending, and investment can increase from new technology, better capital goods, and increased productivity. Deregulation particularly in areas like real estate and other overregulated industries can create growth. In the long term, extraterrestrial colonies can grow the economy and overall population by increasing trade.
There are countries today that have or will soon have declining populations and are still able to have a functioning society with a good quality of life even if they are growing slower than countries with faster population growth. Correlation is not causation. Just because population growth increased along with life expectancy, and less extreme poverty does not mean it caused these changes.
The point is that GDP per capita has grown at least partially through growth in humans. If you shrink instead of growing, suddenly you transform a tailwind into a headwind. You will be poorer than you would have been regardless. You bring up that maybe we are not poorer in absolute terms. Hopefully you're right. I read something about this. I should find it again.
Agreed that humans elsewhere is a good way to keep growing the economy. My point is not to say "OMG we absolutely need to superpopulate the Earth" but rather "Chill out, we can grow for centuries and still be fine".
The countries you mention (eg Japan) are doing OK (not great!) in part because the rest of the world keeps growing
Factor in global debt / QE and you'll see that GDP growth and human prosperity has been built on economic sand. About 80% of historical healthcare improvement and longevity is down to clean water, sanitation and vaccines. The rest is mainly treating diseases caused by the progress you're touting. You fail to mention the impact of religion on populations. Also, you conflate agricultural land use and the natural environment for feeding a city. City populations don't feed themselves. Finally, you fail to distinguish, contrast (or even mention) the urban sprawl of many major American cities, plus Tokyo and Moscow, with the less developed but high-density cities of Jakarta, Delhi, Manila, Mumbai, Mexico City, Cairo, Sao Paulo, Bangalore, Nairobi etc. The residents of the slums in the latter group could provide a better lesson in the future of any mass population growth or movement to megacities. The American decrease in longevity and Japanese, Russian, Italian, Polish etc decrease in fecundity are also trends that are dominating genuine demographics rather than anthropocentric utopian fantasies that seem born straight out of the late 1960s. We haven't walked on the moon for over half a century. Antibiotic resistance is increasing to lethal levels. The next influenza pandemic will make Covid seem like a picnic ('flu vaccines are typically only 40% effective). Humans don't live in a world disconnected from nature. Pollinator decline alone could starve us as a species. So a dose of realism would be very welcome.