What limits population, is farmable land. You shouldn’t worry about the rest. Malthusianism has been disproven many times.
A world with 20 billion people is as good. Humanity will leave its cradle one day, and go to the stars.
A world with 1 billion of people would be less innovative, sicker. If you look at past times: low population has not guaranteed anything to be better.
Economic theory predicts more people actually will stimulate demand for services, innovation and more.
As always population mostly has been limited by human organisation, technology, and food. Not by else. A 20 billion world is wholly liveable, more innovative, with slightly taller skyscrappers.
You people need to learn more about economics. Humans are very creative at increasing life quality. My nearby shops now has a system locker to rent an electronic device 1 day that’s automated, that’s what economies of scale are.
I am not here to ask if Earth can have 20 billion people or not, I’m here to ask about the dilemma of saving lives might not always be good. If you want, you can up the number to 200 billion people and see that Earth can’t handle that number. At a point, you must say that saving more people is not a good thing, and it will just be a bad thing. And now comes the dilemma: if you say that saving people is not for the sake of saving people, you might be justifying murder (or preventing births) as “the most effective thing to do.”
What limits population, is farmable land. You shouldn’t worry about the rest. Malthusianism has been disproven many times.
A world with 20 billion people is as good. Humanity will leave its cradle one day, and go to the stars.
A world with 1 billion of people would be less innovative, sicker. If you look at past times: low population has not guaranteed anything to be better.
Economic theory predicts more people actually will stimulate demand for services, innovation and more.
As always population mostly has been limited by human organisation, technology, and food. Not by else. A 20 billion world is wholly liveable, more innovative, with slightly taller skyscrappers.
You people need to learn more about economics. Humans are very creative at increasing life quality. My nearby shops now has a system locker to rent an electronic device 1 day that’s automated, that’s what economies of scale are.
I am not here to ask if Earth can have 20 billion people or not, I’m here to ask about the dilemma of saving lives might not always be good. If you want, you can up the number to 200 billion people and see that Earth can’t handle that number. At a point, you must say that saving more people is not a good thing, and it will just be a bad thing. And now comes the dilemma: if you say that saving people is not for the sake of saving people, you might be justifying murder (or preventing births) as “the most effective thing to do.”