Although I am not an economist, the “growth per capita” argument has always seemed obvious to me. I repeat it in every GDP discussion and it usually end up being ignored. Maybe it’s because it isn’t a mainstream view? I don’t know. It seems to me that real GDP _per capita_ is a much better measure of economic well being, and it might well be easier to sustain with a _smaller_ population since the fixed amount of GDP potential generated by natural resources could be shared between less individuals. The fact that each person would have a greater amount of natural resources to work with would probably lead to economic prosperity. (Not to mention the obvious environmental benefits of not having to over exploit nature to get a respectable share of wealth per person)

I hope I’m not just repeating things from the article because I couldn’t read it, but god I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that way.

Population decline is _the solution_ to A LOT of environmental AND economic problems.

Who was it that said relentless growth was the strategy of cancer?