Your resources argument is sound, for a certain time frame, i.e. long enough that we are worried about running out of resources on earth, but short enough that

Your resources argument is sound, for a certain time frame, i.e. long enough that we are worried about running out of resources on earth, but short enough that we haven't developed the technology to extract resources off of earth. However, unemployment is not currently (and isn't likely to be in the near future) caused by limited by natural resources, so I don't see how freeing up more resources will help with unemployment on any reasonable time scale. Furthermore, more resources don't solve the problem of unemployment. More resources per person may allow us to provide a better quality of life for the remaining people, but it won't create jobs. In fact while you may have some arguments for a better quality of life with fewer people (assuming resource limitations and ubiquitous automation, and assuming that 10 people living at X standard of living is inherently better than 100 people living at less than X standard of living), none of the arguments directly address solving unemployment. I was specifically challenging the previous poster on that point. Will population reduction solve unemployment. It may solve other "problems", not unemployment.