>>12728721Intensifying resource scarcity is perhaps a good choice.
There could be a Spanish Flu level pandemic or superbugs, but I don't think that will collapse humanity beyond recovery.
Nuclear war would be too based, superintellgent AI is just over blown, and falling birthrates is not a concern at all, rather a fallacy.
It hurts no one but the economy. There will always be a distribution of the population that will have the genes to make more babies than average. Ever since we hit the industrial revolution, and medicine breakthroughs, we've been seeing exponential growth which helped exponentially grow the economy, because, duh, more consoooomers.
So a stagnating population growth will also result with a stagnating economy, which is not bad at all. Imagine boiling down civilizations to one number, GDP, and thinking you need to pump that bubble to "develop".
That's how retarded "caring about the economy" from that aspect of population growth is.
Just like printing money is an artificial inflation of the economy, getting more consoomers in an economy is stealing them from elsewhere and is artificially inflating the economy.
Despite the "economy growing" the average person is seeing no meaningful return, rather just stagnating salaries and worsening buying power.
It is retarded to think that that is a good thing, but politicians deceived us into thinking that for the sake of votes, and I think we will reap what we sow and we are already started to.
People rush to blame things and split into groups, not recognizing that developed countries have already developed we are not having consecutive breakthroughs like we did in the early 20th century, and because the native growth is decreasing, the economy will stagnate. We will need a new breakthrough in the means of production like the industrial revolution to see similar growth we've seen in the past couple centuries, but it won't be because of exponential consoomer growth like last time.
