I don't have to be. Since we're far more efficient now then we were half a century ago, even if workforce participation goes down, we would still produce a lot more then we did in the 1960s. Relatively speaking, regressing to that level of consumption would be a relatively minor lifestyle adjustment. Let's also not forget that the elderly can, and do useful work.

Compared to the problems of overpopulation, this doesn't even register as a crisis.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. Look at today's highly unbalanced budgets around the world, and heavily deficitary pension systems. How would that work if you decreased revenues by 10% and increased payouts by 70%?

You're missing out on the dependency ratio. Take the Euro area, for example, today, for every 2 people in work age, there is 1 person being sustained (youth or pensioners), by 2060, for every 4 people in work age, 3 will have to be sustained, an increase of 50%, and it will be far more expensive than today, due to health care costs for the elderly.

Work age population will fall from 335M people today to 300M in 2060, while elderly will increase from 90M to 150M and youths will stay roughly the same.

So 35M fewer people paying taxes, and 60M more people needing support.

This goes right back to my earlier point with respect to what our society prioritises.

There are more empty homes in America then there are homeless people, but that doesn't mean that the richest country in the world cannot afford to have a roof over its head.

This is not even considering the easy way out, which is more immigration.