>>25687
You don't have to be a genious but you'd have to be clairvoyant. It's not about reaching your full potential necessarily. Just as an example consider how many scientific breakthroughs were accidents. Don't underestimate chance.
You're making a huge leap over a phenomenon of population decline with your logic. But there really is more land available than what you might imagine, that's not arbitrary.
As for the state of things there have been some ways devised but whichever is chosen it won't be easy. However just because it's hard to believe doesn't mean it's impossible. Whatever the case, no matter what you've been told, population control is not in the interest of the population so qui bono?
Even if we remain by capitalistic solutions cheaper labour ends up in cheaper goods and more investments. Look at China.
More people is always more market so yea your wage might suck if you use a beaten trail but you'll have more occasions to start your own business. Reducing population is really not in your interest.