>>31622177Do they need more? The more people you have, the more disadvantages there are. Disease, crime, wealth ineqaulity, etc. By having fewer people, all of these rates should drop save for certain crimes (murder for example would remain proportionally correct but would see an overall decrease). Like I said before, the only reason why you would need more people would be to wage war. But even then, a conflict requiring a huge draft to warrant such a thing is pretty much in the past now. Nuclear weapons, drones, electronic warfare, and in the near-future robotic warfare, have all but elimated the need for more.
Only less developed countries see a benefit for more people. And that's simply due to inefficiencies in their infrastructure and design. But even such trends predict a decline in birthrate overtime, as the beliefs will change from "You need 5 kids!" to "You need 3 kids!" to "You need a kid!" due to those nations developing into where first world nations are now.
In the end, infinite growth is just silly. If you told someone "Want 10 acres of land for $100 or 1 acre of land for $100", the choice is obvious. Less people is better overall. This isn't Fallout or a Zombie Apocolypse.
