>We don't need more people, "plummeting" birth rates are not a problem when there are already >8 billion of us.
This is mathetmatically ignorant. Clearly, if all 8 billion people are 90 yrs old, it wouldn't matter that there were 8 billion. It wouldn't matter that there were 900 quadrillion. 90 yr olds can't reproduce, and so those people are all functionally dead anyway.
A bee hive might be bustling, swarming with workers, but once the queen bee is gone, once the hive has no more capacity to rear another queen in a hurry, that hive has become functionally extinct. Pretending that it's just fine, that you can hear the buzzing and that there are thousands of cute little bees flying around is ignorant, because you're not counting on the only thing that matters. And just like with this bee hive, so you're talking the same about humanity. Functional extinction is looming.
Nice strawman, mr. ignorant. What you described isn't the current reality; fantasy situations are not useful to debate here.
I gave an exaggerated example so that the dimwitted could understand something that apparently isn't clear: not everyone in a population counts equally. Only the smaller fraction of a population that is capable of reproduction counts.
It's not 8 billion in number, and in most of the world it is shrinking.
A subset of 8 billion is sufficient as well.
Really depends on the subset, doesn't it? In Japan and China (even Poland, recently), that subset is so small that the population is shrinking year-to-year. Annual deaths outnumber annual births.
It's quite clearly getting ready to happen pretty much everywhere else, and is masked by immigration in those places where you might claim that population isn't shrinking.
All I see is ruinous insufficiency.