The main point is unassailable, most individuals (in any category) will be from larger pools vs. small pools. One implication I have seen mentioned before is t

The main point is unassailable, most individuals (in any category) will be from larger pools vs. small pools. One implication I have seen mentioned before is that we are far likelier to be living in a time of high population than low. That within 95% accuracy, we are living in a time segment with 95% of humanity. To make any sense of that, given the long future humanity could have on Earth, the chance of human extinction is great. Given the serious challenges of any meaningful colonization of the moon, Mars or anyone else, and the number of existential threats to humanity, many of them self created (weapons, brittle dependency on tech, environmental damage, etc.) it is another reason to take collective human action toward risk mitigation much more seriously than our leaders and citizenry have done till now. One way our civilization could continue, but numbers come down, is if artificial intelligence inherently needs less individuals. Maybe there will be no good practical reason for more than one post-human AI and economics will simply result in one, inevitably more complex and modular, intelligent individual chewing through the resources of our solar system and beyond. That would fit with the articles conclusion that our civilization must already be on the larger population side, so any future we have must contain much fewer individuals or none? Not very reassuring - but worth considering.