[cfhhgtyg]

Degrowth doesn't imply that.

You imply that population will increase indefinitely (max peak expected at 12 billion actually) or that degrowth needs to happen forever.

Further you imply population development increases if degrowth is applies.

Also, slippery slope argument.

[bheadmaster]

> You imply that population will increase indefinitely

You imply that it won't.

I don't see a fundamental reason why humans would stop at 8 billion - yeah, currently, (my hypothesis is that) the world is kind of shit, so people stopped procreating due to stress. However, there's no reason to think that people won't procreate once the world becomes a better place to live.

> or that degrowth needs to happen forever

Assuming population keeps growing (which I see no fundamental reason to doubt will happen eventually), degrowth needs to happen forever in order to keep the consumption from growing - basic math:

    total consumption = number of people * avg. consumption per person

To keep total consumption constant, avg. consumption per person needs to decrease proportionally to the increase of the number of people.

> Also, slippery slope argument.

Not a real counter-argument.

[cfhhgtyg]

> You imply that it won't.

How? Though, I am certain that it won't grow indefinitely on earth.

> I don't see a fundamental reason why humans would stop at 8 billion

It can stop at 9 billion and still not grow indefinitely. Currently a peak of 11 billion and no more than 12 billion is estimated. As said. Because of increased living standards.

> To keep total consumption constant, avg. consumption per person needs to decrease proportionally to the increase of the number of people.

It better to decrease proportionally with a coefficient smaller than 1 and bigger than 0 than decrease consumption not at all.

> Not a real counter-argument.

Yes, it is, because it implies a logical fallacy.

[mpweiher]

>> You imply that population will increase indefinitely

> You imply that it won't.

> I don't see a fundamental reason why humans would stop at 8 billion

This is not a guess based on how we subjectively feel about the world, but the current UN estimate, based on a lot of data.

"By 2100, the global fertility rate is expected to dip to 1.9 births per woman", so below the replacement rate, which is slightly above 2.0.

https://www.livescience.com/65732-world-population-will-stop...

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world...

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-popu...