> My argument was that once we hit the economic plateau, our quality of living will decrease if the population continues to increase. This is totally irrelevan

> My argument was that once we hit the economic plateau, our quality of living will decrease if the population continues to increase. This is totally irrelevant because (as I said) population growth is slowing down and the population is almost certainly not going to continue to increase forever. It's forecast that human population will max out late this century due to declining birthrates in countries that are growing wealthier; hitting the theoretical limits (e.g. max solar output) before then is so implausible it's barely worth discussing. > Again, he covers this in his first post via reductio ad absurdum: His assertion that SSP (and everything else) is impractical for sustaining 2% growth for a millennium is true, but practically irrelevant. Space-based exploitation can increase the plateau cap, allowing for higher standards of living for a future populace whose population is level or declining.