>>2786
I view population as room for error and the ability to absorb catastrophe. High pop countries don't necessarily do better, but they will always have the potential to do better than ones in population decline.
Canada is a good example. We are sitting at a 1.4 fertility rate and have to import hundreds of thousands of people per year, and they are increasingly - not assimilating or openly disloyal, or so low skill they either contribute to crime or are only capable of working menial jobs (often gotten through affirmative action)
Canada has essential no history with slavery and yet in Toronto they have already started lowering standards for Middle Eastern and Black students, justified by "racism" which of course, does not exist.
https://archive.is/FeUHa
There are other articles which I saved better highlighting the point, no idea where I kept the links.
Similarly, higher pop enables all three methods of growth - capital, labour and technological input. In reality however, low fertility countries really only have technological growth, as capital is still heavily dependent on labour.
Also, I should specifiy I don't mean low population, I mean low popualtion growth. Obviously Norway can't support 1 billion people but it is still a highly developed country.