Bubblesofearth wrote:vand wrote:I don't agree.
Would you care to put a rough number of what is an "ideal" number of humans for us to be able to continue to thrive as a species?
People are not just problems and polluters; they are also problem solvers and creators.
With more problem solvers and creators in the world we create more wealth overall, and then value of our creation and knowledge increases when we trade with one other -- so between two societies with equal individual skills and productivity but one just has a much larger number of people, the larger society will be more prosperous overall.
That's why population and prosperity are so closely intertwined.
Addressing the last point first, if you look at Western European countries there is no correlation between population size and prosperity. Indeed I believe Luxembourg has the highest gap/capita. Switzerland, Norway and Denmark are also high on the list. Assuming you are happy with gap/capita as a proxy for prosperity?
As for the previous point it's not so much finding an ideal number of humans as identifying an upper limit. From an ecological standpoint this has to be where we are living sustainably - i.e. not consuming resources faster than they are being produced and not polluting faster than the pollution can be removed from the ecosystem. Otherwise it's just a matter of time before collapse occurs.
This is just basic ecology and applies for any species, not just humans. Sadly ecology seems to be one of those subjects that doesn't seem to be particularly well understood by many people.
BoE
There is no correlation*between* countries of population size Vs economic prosperity because they all have different political and economic systems and start from wildly different points. But there is overwhelming evidence of such correlation *within* a country which adjusts for most of those other factors - political shifts and social changes nowithsranding.
It's not controversial to recite some of the basic tenets of economics here - countries have learned to overcome the limitations of their own limited factors of production by **trading with one another**.
Ergo, the more partners you have to trade with the more options you have for exchange of your own produce and the more value is bequeathed to your own efforts, ie the wealthier you become.
If there are more people - more people - in their world all out there producing away, there come more options for trading. It is the total number of other countries/people who you can trade with that is the ultimate factor in how wealthy you can become, not your own population. That's why total global population aging and eventual decline will work as a headwind.