3 ms·
3.1. But that also means that all the bad minorities can form stronger groups and be potentially more impactful. If you can not play underwater hockey you might
by danbruc 11y ago
3.1. But that also means that all the bad minorities can form stronger groups and be potentially more impactful. If you can not play underwater hockey you might pick some other form of hockey instead. Maybe it makes you a bit less happy but what is the effect of a less fragmented society? I am not dismissing the idea that there might be a positive effect but I am not obviously convinced.
3.2. I would argue that the increase in wealth is mostly due to increased productivity and not due to population growth and therefore could continue even without further population growth. Population growth is certainly not totally irrelevant due to scale effects but I don't see that simply doubling the population would lead to significantly increased wealth.
3.3. That is not what I am saying. Having a pyramid shaped age structure is an easy way to have a lot of workforce available to support the elderly but that structure is not the result of a large population but of an growing population. And in order to be a significant effect you can not have just a tiny bit of growth but a substantial amount of growth is definitely unsustainable.
The limit definitely exists but I also think we will not hit it, we will not need any (large scale) birth control policies because the birth rate will drop enough with increasing wealth. Looking at developed nations it looks actually more like we will have to incentivize having more children in order not to go extinct.