Oh wow, guess I hit a nerve with people of both sexes who can't find a life partner or face the reality that maybe you aren't all that and being a bit overly demanding in your expectations of others and might have to concede a few points unless you are okay with dying alone. I even threw in a 5'2" guy and a homely girl I'm friends with found love together and have been in a happy relationship for years while other guys and girls I know aren't willing to and ended up missing out on the experiences they coveted. I feel kind of sad for them, because I still think they had a shot if they were willing to be a bit more realistic, but for some of their goals they have run out of time. (As in, they both wanted kids, but now are post menopausal or already a nearing 50 year old guy who still wants to pickup that 18 year old girl of his dreams for the past 30 years despite still living with his parents.)
Or maybe it's just that people are in denial that the vast majority of female history was about securing the best and most reliable partner they can, because they are the gatekeepers to partnering as the limiting resource in reproduction and make the heftier investment in it? That's like, pretty common for mammals and birds; animals that have to invest in parenting. Women who picked poorly were less reproductively successful, so choosiness tends to be a trait that gets emphasized over time. I think there are a few species that are male driven selection and for them, and you can see it in reverse there.
This isn't nefarious, it's just default programming... which is kind of useless now. As a species we aren't really adapted to our modern world in many ways and generally run into problems because of it. Still, it's worthwhile to acknowledge what were important survival instincts for your cave ancestors, and when you should buck back against them. Another one would be your drive to eat like famine lurks around every corner when that's extremely unlikely in modern western society and will just make you fat.
These hunter-gatherer era adaptations are also why humans are serial monogamous and don't mate once and become inseparably and exclusively bonded. It was beneficial for couples to stick together long enough to raise one kid past the non-contributing to the tribe years, then sometimes go pair up with different people. Benefits genetic diversity in small groups, helps better your overall chance of getting through a bottle neck, thus passing on the trait to do that. A lot of animals we consider monogamous often have females who will eventually move on, because that's just a good species continuation instinct.
A sensible solution would be to allow the population to contract until it reaches an equilibrium. No more immigration, no more demands for endless line-goes-up. Anything that tries to maintain the status quo of perpetual growth simply makes the eventual contraction more painful for all involved.
I think the overall problem we need to face for contraction is to accept that social security is just a legalized pyramid scheme and will collapse. If we do reach the point where we have robotic caretakers, I guess that will be one rather depressing solution to "What do we do will all these elderly who can't care for themselves anymore."
It's worthwhile to fix though, because it's never going to become an easier bridge to cross. I just accepted that the system will bankrupt before I retire and I'll probably have to work until I die and they yeet my body into a dumpster.
I don't think the population is going to crash like a rat utopia, though, just hit a lower stability point. Although, I might still be surprised.
