[felipemnoa]

>>that don't require more people.

More people does not necessarily mean more laborers. It also means more consumers. Without more consumers we humans would not be incentivized to mine so much. Without the need to mine so much engineers would not have invented more efficient ways to mine. So on and so forth...

[pixl97]

>Without more consumers

Eh, this isn't exactly correct. While yes, owning so many pairs of socks is of limited utility to me, in general individual greed is hard to sate.

So yea while another pair of pants won't do me any good, I'll take another house, another trip, another ... whatever. But this starts to shift the resource load to other places. Such as national parks getting flooded out with people. With actual property for things to be built on to become scare. Removal of the natural world to stick in more human development.