The argument made does not hold up under even trivial scrutiny. > We want a much larger population because then we can solve problems. > resources are not a p

The argument made does not hold up under even trivial scrutiny. > We want a much larger population because then we can solve problems. > resources are not a problem thanks to technology. 1. Most people today consume very few resources. Not out of choice but due to the highly selective resource allocations. So the first goal then should be to even out the resource allocations for all the 8 billion people on the world today. This could go some way to validating the argument. I dont think this will happen but if the author can make it happen it would be impressive to say the least. Good luck on that. 2. According to the argument we also have a large surplus of geniuses that never have a chance ot achieve their optimal utility. Again, fix that in the world today, to prove it will work with a larger set. 3. The argument is severely flawed. Ok, we will be happy with more humans. Now we are 8 billion or so walking around on the planet. After some time, we have 16 billion. Ok, we will be happy with more humans. After some time we have 32 billion. Ok, we will be happy with more humans. Obviously, that doesn't work. The immense lack of resources would curtail any such increase. We cannot be permanently convinced that creating a larger population is beneficial. Thus the argument requires a somewhat defined limit. The author mentions arguments made that the optimal population size is less than 2 billion people. Then rejects it. However was proven above the author will have to come up with an optimal population as well. Since it is absurd to believe that we can grow in all infinity. Towards the end there will not be enough land for every person to stand up, and people are packed like sardines. Can the author agree that 100 billion people would be a problem? 1000 billion? Presently there is a hypothesis that the global population will soon stabilize and then decrease naturally. ¹ "" Projections by the United Nations suggest that the global population could rise to around 10.4 billion in the 2080s, after which it may stabilize or begin a gradual decline. "" Is this then a tragedy as far as the author's arguments go? Personally, I am not that worried about population growth. It appears to be a long-standing pattern that something epically bad will happen that will drastically reduce the population, in some scenarios even wipe it out. War (Nuclear, biological) , meteor(s), consequences of climate change, a plague (that will make covid seem like a minor cold), or something else catastrophic, AI (never understood this one myself), ¹ https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/world-population-surpasses-8-billion-what-are-implications-planetary-health-and#:~:text=Projections%20by%20the%20United%20Nations,alive%20have%20already%20been%20born https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/world-population-surpasse....