> If extraordinary ability is a function of a percentile of the population, then a smaller population will have fewer geniuses and prodigies in art, literature,

> If extraordinary ability is a function of a percentile of the population, then a smaller population will have fewer geniuses and prodigies in art, literature, science, and politics I doubt it is, but if so, and education just "exposes" natural talent, I wouldn't be worried. We already have a lot of natural talent in the developed world that's untapped. India alone should have 4x more geniuses than the USA. > A smaller population leaves us poorer and less capable. I'd like to discuss this with HN. Less capable to do what? We won. Nature won't kill us any more, we have no predators, we know how to produce more food than we need [1], transportation is so easy we get access to things from all over the world and communication so seamless we can stay in touch with anyone. What do we need more people for? Our largest existential enemy right now is unsustainability. > There's no reason our current (or a larger) population isn't sustainable by changing how we generate energy or dispose of waste. I don't think anyone really knows this to be true, and in fact I suspect it might apply to small communities, but not to the world at large. Even if we could continue growing for now, eventually we'll reach a limit. But in any case, why do we want to keep growing? [1]: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_n_1463429 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_n_1463429