Yes, we could likely also support billions more if everything was calculated on a utilitarian basis, of whatever products were optimally nutritious etc, but would you want to live in a world like that? (Think Mega City One, Resyc "we use everything except the soul" etc.)
I should add that I don't think of this in first / third world terms - e.g. some have argued that the UK population should be 30 million.
We have _masses_ of free space in the UK. Cities cover a small proportion of the land, and there's lots of farmland that's not being used any more.
I don't think it's a choice that we actually have to make, especially as we're below replenishment rate in Europe, and this seems to be a trend that countries follow as education levels rise.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
I should add that I don't think of this in first / third world terms - e.g. some have argued that the UK population should be 30 million.
no subject
I don't think it's a choice that we actually have to make, especially as we're below replenishment rate in Europe, and this seems to be a trend that countries follow as education levels rise.