The income itself is what stabilizes the population, this phenomenon is known as the demographic-economic paradox.

The real false assumption here is that increased standard of living leads to overpopulation. The data indicates the opposite is true.

Reproduction is a survival mechanism. Threaten an organisms survival, and that mechanism is triggered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

Ok. But if for some bizarre reason lacking a Nobel prize, people multiply non-linearly, then BI will not be sustainable, correct? And that constraint defies the definition of post-scarcity.

Most developed countries are already below the birthrate required to maintain the current population.

Seems easy enough to give BI to folks who are 18+ and not offer more for kids, or only offer more for the first kid, whatever. There's no reason to give a financial incentive to have more kids, and if you don't the disincentive is already built in (kids cost money).

By the way, the issue is not as much population growth as high consumption. What is worse, more people living on basic income or the billions in China and India aspiring to an American middle class lifestyle?

> Seems easy enough to give BI to folks who are 18+ and not offer more for kids, or only offer more for the first kid,

So absence of scarcity will totally be a thing if everything just goes according to plan. Got it.

Absence of scarcity is not a result of BI. You have it mixed up. It's the other way around entirely. My response (quoted by you) is merely to counter the urban legend that poor people just like popping out babies to get that sweet government assistance. Alleviating extreme poverty does more to slow population growth than anything else we know so far.

Your sarcasm does not contribute to this discussion.

It's a factor now. Two generations ago, we barely had computing, and we had very little non-fossil energy. If there weren't challenges to solve, we'd be there by now, but progress continues.