The thing is, efficiency unveils new possibilities, and possibilities induce demand, consumption. We are much more efficient than 10 years ago, but also consume at a much faster pace.
As it turns out, often the opex for the people is still cheaper than the capex plus opex for the robot.
> If the world ahead has fewer people, will there be any real economic growth?
Of course there will. As long as per capita usage of energy and stuff increases faster than population decreases. Basically this will continue the concentration of wealth ~indefinitely.
I mean, consider Vernor Vinge's Marooned in Realtime. Even the poorest people consume as much as many nations do now.
Plus, it isn't obvious that all the important stuff can be automated.
No. People who don't exist don't experience anything.
And there are plenty of people who are born and who as adults wish they had never been, and a lot of us who are still ok with it but not very excited are still biased since we do exist. This is not a problem for those who are never born. They don't become people who can feel pain and suffering.
There are plenty of people. I really doubt that an increase in people is in itself a reason for increased happiness. Noone is arguing for exterminating parts of the not needed population because of automation.
If a person's body is unhealthy, we don't encourage them towards greater unhealthiness, but rather health. The same with mental health. We should encourage mentally healthy perspectives, which includes self value.
- Governmental fiscal debt
- Global climate change
- Societal debt. By this I mean, the previous generation left an unstable society at risk of collapse for the next generation. I would imagine a person born in 1920 would feel this way. As a programmer, I would frame this as "tech" debt for our social institutions.