> because it's generally considered that overpopulation leads to competition. It's not that straight forward. But an over simplified answer would be the popul

> because it's generally considered that overpopulation leads to competition. It's not that straight forward. But an over simplified answer would be the population pyramid. Tax base shrinks, more tax burden on working class people. Then the other problem is that the global birth sex ratios. The natural sex ratio at birth is 105 men for 100 women. When a population is growing, this isn't much of a problem in monogamous societies, and everyone finds a partner (men marry younger women on average). When the population is under decline, there is extreme pressure on men and in a perfectly monogamous society, 10% of men are definitely going to be left behind. If we can some how genetically modify humans so that the sex ratios come near 1/1 or 0.95 men to 1 woman, it'll be easier to survive a decline in population and men wont be impacted as much. A growing population favors almost no one, not men, not women. A declining population means that men are the unfavored sex. The end result could be large male foeticide instead of female foeticide 50 years down the line. I myself plan to not have sons but daughters because daughters are almost guaranteed to reproduce in future and abortion is a human right. Therefore the right way to sustain a decline in population would be an engineering of birth ratios across the world so that a decline in population isn't too harsh on some people. The goal of money is power (supporting causes you favor etc) and access to better mates. When there aren't enough mates to go by, people will get exhausted and start giving up. It's going to be a permanent burnout as more people become aware of what the future holds. There's a way that even during a declining global population to sustainable levels, people remain happy. It might be unpopular, but it needs to be done. A new order.