>Self-education is increasingly obtainable online Which would be impossible if someone with a lot of money decide to hoard it instead of investing in YouTube.

>Self-education is increasingly obtainable online Which would be impossible if someone with a lot of money decide to hoard it instead of investing in YouTube. You can't guarantee that when people spend less money, they'll favor cutting out "bad" things over "good" ones. If something is causing ecological externalities, you can tax always tax it. If something has positive externalities, but you didn't raise enough money in taxes, you can fund it by printing more money. >Worse for who? Humans? Half the world lives off less than $5.50 a day. They don't have the luxury of caring about the environment. Madagascar nearly completely deforested, just from burning fuel for heating and cooking, so it's not like it's guaranteed that less economic activity is going to be any better for the environment. Conveniently, poor people are also the ones who have most kids because they are the only source of retirement possible. The only ethical way to curb population growth is to develop the economy in those poorer areas.