Why are they? Fewer people, fewer mouths to feed, more value on labor, more natural resources and real estate for the rest of us.

We cant grow forever. Dropping total population in the most ethical way then keeping things steady seems like the most nonviolent cool way to do this.

Tor fucks sake there's like ten billion people we could keep everything we need going, easily, with half that.

Anf imagibe if we actually valuee people instead of treating them like disposable garbage to throw away in poverty and wars! Wouldn't that be cool?

Because the big rationale for it being a problem is that GDP declines as population declines. But GDP is an aggregate measure that's dependent on population, so that's not a problem, it's a tautology.

But it's mostly caused by social issues, imo it is nowhere near being a real problem

in dire situations

That's just repeating the assumption that's being questioned.

Might be bad now but it leads to a better future. Infinite growth was always impossible, this is just the result of decades of mismanagement.

Technically there should be a ratio of young to old to take care of all of the elderly

That's a rule of thumb that assumes a lot of things about elderly people's need for care, how much that's funded by the young, productivity in how that care is provided, and a huge number of other variables.

Lower population will make resource allocation easier and improve quality of life, and obviously is necessary to prevent further environmental damage.

The environmental damage is more to do with bad choices about the mix of technology currently used to power the economy, and the poor ratio of GDP per unit of energy consumed. So I dispute that "obviously."