[rsynnott]

Can you explain why you think that the population (eventually) falling is an inherent problem? (Beyond claiming that unnamed experts think that it is a problem, I mean.) There are of course problems which it implies, primarily, bluntly, "how do we pay for all the old people", but really that one was going to show up to some extent _anyway_ just due to increased lifespans, and it has many possible solutions which don't involve population increase.

If, in a couple of centuries, the world's population is, say, 3 billion, then, provided that they've weathered the economic stresses around pensions etc., why is that a problem?

Personally, I'm far from a dog enthusiast. My reasons for questioning you on this are in no way related to dogs.

> You said this isn’t “_that_ novel”? Are you kidding?

I was referring to a shortfall in working-age vs non-working-age population (for reasons other than low growth; disease or war generally, though if you go back a bit further famines sometimes also cause a similar distortion) not being that novel. And the working/non-working ratio is the only _real_ concern that I can see here.

[ninetyninenine]

Japan and Korea were ahead of the curve. They hit the major issues first and they are a precursor to the problems the rest of the world will face in a major way.

https://www.newsweek.com/japan-south-korea-face-population-d...

Look it up. This problem is everywhere, it's very public. It's not some obscure problem I dug up.

Also you're talking about hypotheticals in a couple of centuries. The problems being discussed are ones we will be facing within our lifetimes.

If you want to debate me I'm done talking. But if you want to learn more, go look it up. There's entire podcasts talking about this problem.