[johnea]

> a large part of humanity will cease to be able to add significant (economic) value

Which, of course, is our "special purpose" in life.

Why would people even exist if they weren't going to contribute to shareholder value?

I completely agree that more people is not good, but for completely different reasons: there are WAY too many already.

Our primate species has so overpopulated the planet that every single "environmental service" (to put this in the money = purpose in life perspective) is massively over burdened.

My personal opinion is that there is no such thing as "purpose in life", we just grew from the mud here. But I think there is a general awareness among people with some exposure to the state of the planet that we're trashing the place, and that's mostly due to there being way too many humans.

Even if a person can't put their finger on it, there is a general feeling that the future holds a dubious opportunity to flourish.

Therefore less kids.

I also believe that raising a child takes a lot of time and effort, and modern first world youth just aren't interested in spending that much time away from their phones.

[dinfinity]

> Which, of course, is our "special purpose" in life.

I didn't say that. But the reality is that people who add no economic value are a problem for our societies as they are structured today.

But yes, overpopulation is also an issue with regard to pressure on the environment.

Something to think about instead of more or fewer humans is: what would be the ideal number of humans (at various points in the future)? It strays into eugenics pretty quickly, but it does force you to think about the fundamental elements such as ethics when dealing with these matters.

[johnea]

Thanks for replying. Sorry, I ended up typing a small chapter 8-/

> people who add no economic value are a problem for our societies as they are structured today.

There's no denying that, I think it's a pretty balanced statement, but a lot of people would point the finger at "as they are structured today".

The fact is, tech advances have been disrupting established social patterns of providing "economic value" from the beginning. And while the Luddites might be pointed to as an example that the world marches on, they actually do serve as a very good example of how the world marches on, with ownership reaping a bigger piece of the economic pie, and labor reaping less.

Working people have been increasingly disadvantaged by tech advances in pretty much every single case, from the beginning of tech advances.

Inequality is on a scale with all time record highs at this point, and tech is being applied to fields never approached before.

So, it's also reality that fewer and fewer people are needed to operate society.

There are already too many people, and fewer and fewer are able to provide "economic value" (the statement of which is silent on who receives that economic value, because it's assumed that it's not value until it's received by ownership. This is just by definition).

One natural consequence we're seeing of this, is that fewer people want to have kids.

Everyone should be happy about this. It means the economic value can be spread more densely while leaving fewer people lacking, and we obtain a greater ability to continue generating economic value into the future. Because the "trashing the planet" consequences are not a joke, even though the owners of the world's largest wealth are treating them that way.

We don't need eugenics, all we have to do is facilitate the already existing population declines, which again, is the opposite of what ownership is trying to do. It's all a panic because the ponzi scheme is going to implode.

1 billion people on the planet would be plenty... Why is that so hard to believe? Why is that so impossible to accomplish?

For all the brilliant advances and innovation that the world's wealth holders are supposed to be "creating", to me they seem pretty cluelessly unable to grasp even the basic facts in front of them and chart a path forward...