>>21391966It's really hard to estimate. I know for a fact that in many countries nothing would grow without fertilizers. This is how (((they))) could starve the whole world within a year - just disrupt the supply of fertilizers and the next year you will get breadlines everywhere. So maybe there is already no way to sustain that many people and allowing them to have 3+ children per woman would lead to uncontrollable chaos by the end of the century.
On the other hand, a lot of energy and resources are wasted for some fucking funkopops/cosmetics/brand clothes/dildos/beyondmeat/electric cars/psych drugs/AI generated porn/etc
If we could redirect these resources into expanding food production, then maybe we could sustain 100B people. But then again, it's just delaying the inevitable. If every generation were "boomer", we would run out of space and resources, it's only a matter of time. Until now there were phases of growth and decline, but (((our masters))) want a stable horizontal line around 500M, see Georgia Guidestones.
