[defrost]

> There is just less people now too.

Global population is still increasing and will most likely continue to do so until 2100.

> we need more efficient people.

It take less people to mine, process, and produce a billion tonne of steel today than it did in the 1970s.

Efficiency has steadily increased.

[bamboozled]

It take less people to mine, process, and produce a billion tonne of steel today than it did in the 1970s.

Why do you think that is? Efficiently gains, which is what I said...

Global population can't just "go up", you need people who are educated in doing things and using tools efficiently. We also have an incredible amount of elderly people to take care of, that puts a huge burden on younger people.

Also don't forget how fast 100 years actually goes. It not a long time.

There is a limit to all of this though, there's absolutely no way 10 billion people colliding with the climate crisis will end well. We'd be better off with 6 billion efficient people than 10 billion starving and thirsty "workers".

[defrost]

> Global population can't just "go up",

It can and it currently is increasing towards what is expected to be a peak and then a decline.

You typed "we need more efficient people" - I responded that efficiency has increased in the past decades.

> Efficiently gains, which is what I said...

I'm not seeing where you typed that.

> We'd be better off with 6 billion people

We have a point of agreement.

> incredible amount of elderly people to take care of, that puts a huge burden on younger people.

Perhaps less than you think, I'm > 60 and I barely take care of my father born in 1935 .. he delivers Meals on Wheels to those ederly that are less able.

There's a lot of scope for bored retiree's to be hired at low cost to hang out with less able elders, reducing the numbers of young people actually required.