[slothtrop]

Population is projected to level out, so it's a moot point. We're facing a crucial need specifically for curbing emissions in the short-run, but we're unlikely to too rapidly exploit resources by virtue that growth in demand will stall and efficiency will continue to improve. Incidentally that can be a catalyst for change in the way society functions. The significant choice facing us is determining the path we take towards post-scarcity and nil GDP growth, because it's happening one way or another.

[teknopaul]

Don't forget that GDP can go down. And so can wealth. Ukraine just had a trillion dollars worth of growth bombed out of existance. Coal isn't the only resource that can go up in smoke.

[slothtrop]

Historically those stagnant periods of low economic growth were usually broken up with violent strife. It can happen again of course, but does not seem likely (atm) on a significant scale. If we assume we're not all going to be bombed out of existence, then the question is whether most of us are going to be holding up empty bags when the stagnation sets in.

[throwaway6532]

>Population is projected to level out, so it's a moot point.

Is it projected to level out or to decline? Because birth rates below replacement indicate decline, not leveling out.