In general I think the answer may be:No - perhaps with a few exceptions. If especially european populations become a bit less numerous now, and the rest of the worlds later, this may be no catastrophe, and "civilisation" does not dissapear because of that (perhaps some parts of what we regard as "our civilization" will disappear - perhaps for the better?) If there is any "moral problem" (perhaps not) it may be the "problem" that somebody try to promote large populations. Not of "love for other people", but for "economy", "defense", or "spreading civilisation". Why should oprdinary people cooperate?
In the short run, we'll need an adjustment to our economic model. The way it works today, prosperity only comes with a constantly expanding market--for labor, capital, food, housing, products, services, everything. Perhaps this will occur naturally with the shift to a post-industrial economy based on information transfer. There's no limit to virtual products and services, regardless of population size. Who ever expected 500 TV channels? We'll also need to fix our social security systems. The way they're administered, they're nothing but Ponzi schemes, collecting money from an expanding client base and giving it to the original buyers, rather than actually investing it and paying out only the profits.
The problem with Europe, Japan, and other places with low birth rate is not lower population per se -- it is lower ratio of young productive population to old non-productive one. IOW, too few workers and too many retirees. There are no easy solutions to that problem; the only real solution is to increase retirement age to reflect both that people live longer, and remain healthy (and thus capable of working) longer. But for some reason it is not a very popular solution Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually it's quite common these days (at least in America) for "retirees" to continue working. They write, teach, lecture, do consulting work, or become professionals in what was once a hobby like painting. Back in the days when most jobs involved a lot of physical labor and/or a demanding routine, it was understandable that older people simply would not be able to continue working, or at least would be ready to lay down the shovel, turn off the drill press, or walk away from the assembly line and have a few years to relax. Today, with the ascendence of knowledge work, we can all continue to be productive on a shorter schedule as long as our brains and fingers continue to work. I'm 65, what was once the standard retirement age in the U.S. Due to some bad decisions I can't retire yet, but I'm not entirely looking forward to it in five years when it might become economically viable. The prospect of bringing in a diminished income from working less, supplemented by a retirement "income" that couldn't possibly support us, is pretty attractive. I don't really want to sit around all day reading, watching TV or walking in the forest. My arthritis makes playing music a little difficult, my trifocals are really tough for doing needlepoint embroidery, and I gave up skiing and off-road motorcycling many years ago due to the increasingly longer physical recovery time. I'd love to travel more but traveling more than once every few years has become prohibitively expensive. So why not keep doing something I'm good at, gives me pleasure, is not physically demanding, and has a market?
I know a lot of people eligible for retirement continue working -- often part-time. But that's their choice. By "increase retirement age" I meant removing the choice. That's not politically popular.
