So I agree that this can have some bad economic side effects, especially as the (larger) previous generation ages, but otherwise I don't really see this as a bad thing (though I guess that's a pretty big "otherwise"). Humanity doesn't have to be like venture-backed startups, where growth is the only way to survive.<p>I'm not a doomsayer that believes that there are way too many of us for the planet to support (IMO we're just bad at distributing resources equitably), but I can't help but assume that fewer people here and there will create less pressure on natural ecosystems.<p>Certainly it would be bad if the population kept shrinking down to nothing (well, bad for humans, anyway), but I don't think some ups and downs here and there should be cause for much alarm.<p>Regardless, though, they're talking about having 200M fewer people than expected in 2100, with a total population of 10.2B. Is 2% really going to be that noticeable? And the actual population drop (from 10.3B in 2080 to 10.2B in 2100) they're talking about is only 100M people, or about 1%.