[chongli]

Yes and this gets into some very difficult questions of population ethics. What is the right amount of people for the world? Is it 7 billion or 70 billion or 700 billion? Or is it 700 million or just 70 million?

Increases in economic output, agricultural and industrial, make it possible for more people to survive. If further and further specialization lead to more and more efficiency with ever growing population, is there a point where we decide things have gotten worse? Or do we slide down the slippery slope into some hellish future dystopia with 700 trillion people, crammed into skyscrapers full of capsule apartments, subsisting on genetically engineered bio-protein sludge and pacified by neuro-electrical stimulation? Not far off from The Matrix.

[rcxdude]

Apart from there being a 'right answer', there does appear to be an answer for how many people we will be: the world population is expected to level off at 11 billion or so as global birthrates drop off (mainly as most countries catch up to a transition a few have already gone through). Without substantial changes to our society it seems it will stay there or slowly decline.

[pm90]

And once we get there, there will be some very tough questions about how to ensure the rate of economic growth that we’ve come to expect to ensure a sustainable quality of life for people.

Perhaps there will be breakthroughs in preventing aging, automation etc. that will allow for sustainable living then? Maybe. It’s an interesting question.

OTOH, we could also simply descend into nuclear war and reset civilization.

Or have more deadly pandemics ravage our cities.

Strange times indeed.