[travisoneill1]

The important part of economic growth is GDP/capita, not total GDP. And if we are to keep growing GDP/capita without destroying the environment, a population decline is absolutely necessary. Increasing population is only economically beneficial in the most short term sense.

[redahs]

A population decline is certainly not necessary to continue growing GDP/capita. What kind of neo-Malthusian nonsense is that? The economy is operating nowhere near peak performance... at least 1/3 of GDP is lost annually due to private capture of economic rent.

[xg15]

I'm assuming you mean "population decline due to death of old age and more empowerment not to have children".

Even then, this would only work until the population has shrunk to a certain point. Then what?

Maybe a more useful way forward would be to question if we need perpetual growth at all.

[fallingknife]

That's the type the article is talking about. But it could also mean starvation, disease, war, or genocide. The mechanism doesn't change the math.

[xg15]

Indeed, and if it's necessary, then it's necessary, right?

[thulecitizen]

I don’t think I 100% understand what you mean by population decline? Do you mean planned parenthood/contraception? In other words: what are some of the strategies you are in favor of to make this decline happen?

[leetcrew]

in the west, one strategy would be to do nothing and let the current trend run its course.

[thulecitizen]

What current trends are you talking about here?

[leetcrew]

birthrates in the west are trending down. the US hit a new low recently of 1.8 births per woman, well below the replacement rate. the US currency has a slightly positive (0.5%) population growth, but this is only due to immigration. if we merely do nothing (and don't adjust immigration quotas), we will have negative population growth in the near future.

[_lbaq]

I think you have also to measure GDP ”distribution”, it will tell you something about equality and that will be/is a very important metric