Hi Alex, and everyone,
It just occurred to me, I think we might be able to expand the population further, with advances in technology and thus future food production, but at the cost of the rest of the Earth's environment, and other species; we could end up surviving, but on a relatively barren Earth, as compared with what we still have today.
I can think of two approaches that are proven to work. One is that, as poor people get educated, especially the womenfolk, they usually have less children. But (sadly) I don't think there is the political will to undertake that option, in which case there is also the 'Chinese govt solution' - pass laws worldwide, with the agreement of all the major governments, to provide incentives for people to have only one or two children, but no more. I don't like this solution, but if it is between that and ruining the Earth's ecosystems, I would choose govt interference. But a declining population could 'harm economic growth', the sacred cow of the current status quo. No wonder we are in such dire trouble!
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."