Right. But also… As the population shrinks (in addition to AI / robotization), we’re on track for a global economic catastrophe.
When businesses can no longer grow, due to people not having enough money and there being fewer consumers, the stock markets will (slowly) crash. As that happens, corporations will scramble to keep afloat. As major employers struggle to employ workers, the unemployment rate rises. Combined: this means less tax revenue, less social services, less economic prosperity. People complain about inflation but deflation is far worse when the population is already in a decline. Governments will scramble to inject free money into the economy. Bonds could become worthless.
The global economy that’s been growing for the past fifty years may crumble in the next fifty years. People may need to rebuild smaller local economies.
It’s actually very interesting. As the population has grown and technology has put the entire planet in the palm of our hands, we as a civilization have grown more apart from each other - instead choosing to reside in the bubbles of our choosing. If the population declines and larger economies struggle, perhaps we’ll need to go back to a time with mom and pop shops and learn to be more neighborly.
In the near term, I think the economic impact would be far greater than ecological impact. Though I think the ecological impact certainly may have a more long term role to play in humanity’s story.
But, I’m not an expert in either of these things. I welcome any source materials studying the matter. I would imagine that some one / group has compiled a formula to define the perfect equilibrium for the planet - combining population growth, employment rates, productivity rates, energy consumption, depletion of natural resources, etc. I’d venture to guess we passed that point around 2010.