The problem isn't that they are shrinking, its the after-effects of shrinking and what it entails.

- The population shrinks but density in the cities still increases -> decreased land utilisation/abandoned villages. - Decreasing birth rate -> inverted population cone/less taxes and more high cost individuals (old people with health problems and no income)

You don't see population shrinkage as necessarily bad, well I don't think population growth as necessarily bad. Overall in the modern West theres been a lot more propaganda against the latter. Risky business really, because I get the feeling decline is going to be a lot harder to combat than growth.

Its not really a matter of size as it is of quality. I personally wouldn't mind a lot more genius rocket scientist supermodels being born. Our best chance to stave off extinction is not to bury our heads in the sand and hope we last on this one rock but to expand. Growth is not in itself the evil, limited resources is and that is what should be tackled. If humanity had limited itself to the size that some people think is sensible from the very beginning you wouldn't be enjoying the comforts like your room and fancy computer that you are now.

Japan's population tripled in the past 100 years, they have no natural resources and live on imported oil, minerals and food. The population density is very high if you consider the geography (many mountains). A slight decrease is not a bad thing in such circumstances.

Scientists are made, not born. They need space to study. If we make them share rooms when they are children, or share houses when they move out, then their potential is squandered.

I had to share a room growing up, so half my time was spent watching TV in the living room. My parents wouldn't let me turn the TV off, as they were watching it or listening to it. Mind-numbing.

I had to share a house at university. My housemates wanted to drink and play games and listen to loud music all day. Also not good.