Current trends show a stabilizing population around 11 billion just after 2100.

Income inequality and “expensive” are not exclusive. If the median income is $1B in current dollars with lots of zettanaires (10^21 vs 10^9 for bikkionaires) you will have high income inequality but still have plenty with few things expensive.

Income inequality, with no other info, is not necessarily bad.

https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/

>Income inequality, with no other info, is not necessarily bad.

I hold a contradictory view. Inequalities in income and wealth means inequalities in power. Inequalities in power lead to unstable social systems. My view is that this holds true regardless of the baseline standard of living.

>11 billion just after 2100

Right, so current trends show a 30% growth in population between now and 2100. That doesn't contradict what I said.

EDIT: I'd like to specify all inequalities do not lead to unstable systems, but very large inequalities do.

The population won't stabilize around 11 billion in the unlikely event that affordable solutions to significantly extend life exist, never mind the technology to resurrect the dead from stored brains...

That’s a good point. But it will stabilize at a higher point. Life extension means fewer children. Just like urbanization means fewer children.

The trend is that as societies become more organized, there are fewer kids.