[throwbadubadu]

Housing and infrastructure? We even have bigger problems, and even if economists claim endless growth it is clear that our population, unless we grow into space, cannot grow forever.

To me it feels we have already passed the sustainable level at maybe 4 billion world population..

Another perspective, lower birthrates in western economies have strongly correlated with prosperity... and our prosperity is also endangered if we don't stop.

Biggest issue is (same with the whole ecological disaster) that this is a world and not a countries problem, and how do you approach that.. no clue. But to begin with, lower birth rates are a good thing imo, we just need to get into a sustainable balance and make sure swings one or the other way don't get too big..

[consp]

> Another perspective, lower birthrates in western economies have strongly correlated with prosperity

As soon as you switch from the pyramid to the fat belly curve (of population vs age) you gain workforce with respect to burden and thus productivity as a country, as soon as it becomes top heavy you're screwed. Maybe it's something else but the baby boom after ww2 and impulses in the 50's 60's will become the baby burden quite soon (and has already started to be).

[throwbadubadu]

Agreed, but what about a balance between bottom heavy and top heavy, wouldn't that be best?

(And on economic arguments, I have been hearing the top-heavy-we-are-all-screwed slogans as long the climate crisis thing for what, 40 years (I think belly curve panic even longer)... however it seems only climate crisis turns out to be true (just observational :))

[revelio]

The climate crisis isn't true, these panics never are. Look at the data. If there was a crisis people would be dying but deaths from weather are massively down over the last 100 years. You can't actually perceive climate change with your senses because the changes are far too small and slow, so you have to rely on news media and academics who aren't exactly reliable.