| I think all things being equal, growth in population is a wash. In a static economy I would think that one more adult will on average and at scale contribute about as much as they consume. AFAIU our economic system (or at least our expectations of it) is based on productivity growth--more output for an equivalent input of labor. The additional output gains are the basic source of wealth creation. For various reasons I think it's easier to maintain robust productivity growth with a growing population. Workers reach maximum productivity age 40-50.[1] Also, if you want the 40- to 50-year-olds of tomorrow to be at the top of their game you want them to begin learning to use their tools today. So an aging population has an increasing proportion of workers past their prime and, worse, those people will be even less productive with newer technology than workers about to enter their prime productivity years. If the population is shrinking then things are worse because now there are fewer workers paying for services for the elderly. But that's a different sort of issue, I think. Alternatively, we could just kill old people. Then we might even be able to sustain high productivity growth even as the population shrinks. But I suspect old people might be critical for sociological reasons; society might be much less stable in their absence. [1] https://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2016/12/09/why-productivity-g... |
1. most work done by today is done by robots?
2. Anti aging improves and life span increases?