[nec4b]

No the automation would not increase if population would fall, because there would be less demand for iron ore. Your machines would rust away and the knowledge to make them would get lost. We are not living in Star trek utopia where with a push of a button a machine makes whatever you want. Less people means less specialization, less creativity and less activity.

[defrost]

Even if the population suddenly stabilised overnight mining automation would continue to increase in order to meet the rising per capita demand from global population.

It's already rising to meet the transition from fossil fuel energy to other sources.

We are living in a world where 60+ year olds like myself increased per capita throughput in exploration, extraction, processing and production. Much of this creative activity that sees results today came from a time 40 years ago when there were far fewer people than today.

[nec4b]

None of what you said would be possible with a dwindling population. We do not live in a Star trek utopia where at press of a button every wish is synthesized by a machine. More people can simply get more done.

There is a good reason why most of the stuff, new discoveries and technologies come from big countries and not from small ones.

Even rich countries per capita with small population size do not build huge infrastructure projects, do not send stuff and people in space, do not have sophisticated armies,...

[defrost]

All of this was put in motion with a population much smaller than todays.

The bulk of it was achieved with a population smaller than todays.

The ongoing work being planned doesn't require the population to grow, there is demand enough from a growing proportion wanting a greater standard of living and a world making a massive transition in base energy.

[nec4b]

>> All of this was put in motion with a population much smaller than todays.

Your logic is circular. Because we can go all the way back to first few humans ever to exist and say they put it into motion, therefore a small group of couple of hundred of people is enough. Or go into other direction and dream what new wonders the next 40 years would bring with the rising population.

>> The ongoing work being planned doesn't require the population to grow, there is demand enough from a growing proportion wanting a greater standard of living and a world making a massive transition in base energy.

It doesn't have to grow, but we are not talking about growing we are talking about shrinking.

[defrost]

There's no logic involved in stating observed fact.

Your comments, however, seem to be locked into a single world view based on the assumed neccesity for unlimited growth.

This is blinkered, to say the least .. you might care to look at any of the many alternative thoughts on this matter,

eg: https://www.amazon.com.au/Small-Beautiful-Economics-People-M...

from waaaaay back in the 1970s.

We are not talking about shrinking back to zero, I am talking about world population finding a sustainable balnce, say five or seven billion by 2300 or so.