I’m seeing these types of articles a lot now and they’re always from the perspective of economic growth. Doom and gloom. “Our economic future is in danger because women aren’t having enough babies — those selfish whores!”

So first off, yours didn’t blame women and elevated POC as a stabilizing force for America. Let me say thanks for that. It’s a breath of fresh air on the issue.

That said, economics is not the only way to look at Population decline. Let’s take a moment and consider another angle.

Population collapse is a threat to national trade, not to global trade and not to the world.

It’s not like China is the only nation that can produce goods and services. There was a time when they were a very small producer, despite their population of goods and services that made were sold to the world beyond their borders. If China has to step back because they can’t produce, other nations and peoples have the opportunity to step forward. Supply and demand. So the only way population reduction is a real threat to the global economy is if the decline is happening across the globe, planet wide for all intents and purposes.

Secondly, if you think this population decline is bad, compare it to the population decline caused by environmental degradation and collapse. The sad fact is, we need global GDP to shrink. We need to get back to producing, buying, and selling a lot less junk we don’t need and investing in things to shore up our futures and protect our environment. If it takes a modest population reduction to do that, I’m all for it. It’s better than the alternative.

On that note, there’s a theory in environmental science about biomass carrying capacity. Sorry, I don’t remember the exact name of the theory or who came up with it but you can look it up. I’m too lazy this morning and the dog is giving me the stink eye because she wants to go for her morning walk. Anyway, briefly put as best I can recall, this theory says that the earth can only hold so much total biomass. The more humans take of that total number, the less there is for all other species. This is bad for the planet because it is an unbalancing of the link between biomes. They’re all connected—acting on and influencing each other. Too much stress or unbalancing and you run the risk of extinctions, biome degradations, and environmental collapse. The world simply can not function with only humans and flora and fauna directly consumer by humans. If this theory holds, it behooves us to keep ourselves at a respectful carrying capacity. And unlike other species, for us that is a choice more than not.

So there’s my two cents. Gotta go walk the dog now. Cheers.