Each "mouth" has a chance of yielding infinitely scalable innovation. For example, the Haber-Bosch process supplies 50% of the nitrogen found in human tissues.

Check out the book "Abundance" by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler.

Innovation can't break the laws of thermodynamics.

If a resource is finite, you are basically betting the future of the specie on its ability to find a substitute before we run out, in the context of an exponentially growing chance of failure.

Right now we are betting we can find a substitute to fossil fuel before we run out of it, while exponentially consumming more energy. We haven't so far, since nothing comes close to the logistic practically, chemical flexibility and energy density of fossil fuel.

But even if we fail at that, we can recover. We have less performant alternatives that are enough so sustain humanity, albeit not at the current level of productivity (after all, we currently build nuclear plants and wind turbines using fossil fuel).

It's less true for soil we can live and growth food on, water we can drink, air we can breath, since those are complex systems.

It's very easy to bring out that it's not a zero sum game when you can type on a computer and order delivery food. But somebody in the desert will have a very different idea of the practicality of the claim.

There are many possible configurations where we end up with the equivalent of the desert of some sort for some very important resources given our population size.

Claiming we are sure to be able to innovate ourself out of those possibilities is naive, and frankly, arrogant. I'm sure somebody used that argument on the Easter Island.

Of course, there are diminishing returns, and hard caps set by physics. As the low-hanging fruit is picked, it will become harder to grow.

But we could expand outside our current planet, initially just for mining for precious resources, but eventually also for colonizing other planets.

The problem with fossil fuel is not that we will run out of it, but that we will make the planet uninhabitable before we can move out. What took millions of years of solar energy hitting the Earth to create, we are burning in centuries or decades. This led to climate change.

If the plan to prevent humanity from collapsing is to go to another (for now not life sustaining) planet instead of taking care of the one we are on right now that can sustain us, something is wrong.

Not saying we should not try, but that should plan Z, not plan B.

Not maxing out our current petri dish should not be controversial.

> Not maxing out our current petri dish should not be controversial.

It should be controversial if it means that the middle class of the developed world have to lower their standards of living, and the global poor will never get the chance to attain the next level of energy consumption per capita fueled by abundant and cheap energy sources like fossil fuels, all the while the elite advocating for such changes hold on to their jets and mansions.

Decreasing population and consumption is going to crash the economy no matter what, and poisining the land we live on is going to make our life terrible. We don't have a choice, billionaire or not, so not planning for it because they exist is like not doing exercice because you wife takes a big alimony: unfair, but unrelated to our survival. Unless you plan to kill the wife.

> Each "mouth" has a chance of yielding infinitely scalable innovation.

Except that in most cases the new "mouth" lives an horrendous experience in overpopulated and poor countries and does not even get a shot to bring his "scalable innovation". They usually just die shortly after.

So, no. More people does not equal infinite minds for a better future and a warm, fuzzy feeling. It usually just means suffering. What you want, is more people in first world countries.

You have to have more people in poor countries before they can even have a chance to develop into first-world standards of living. We can't declare poverty to be solved after all poor people have died off.

I'm taking that you haven't lived in those countries to say that. I lived in Mali for 2 years. They are never going to join us in the club of first-world standards living, they have no resources but sand in their country, not enough tree to make paper to write on. Their society was perfectly adapted to that before we told them they should have computers that they can't affort because they have nothing to contribute to a global economy.

Besides, you assume you need more people to be developped, while France is only 60 millions people, smaller than a lot of developping country.