Yeah sorry, I’m pretty firmly in the camp that there are way too many people for our own good. The only problems we seem to be solving is how to take care of all the people we have with limited resources.
And again, this is in no way any sort of advocacy for intentionally doing anything at all to artificially lower fertility or population numbers. I’m only pointing to those existing trends in developed countries and saying they’re a good thing.
They are, and the most likely outcome is the global population levels off at 10.5 billion or so in about a century. It is entirely within our collective capability as humans to to provide shelter, food, water, health care, education, and sustainable energy to 10.5 billion people. Or we can let 3,000 billionaires stop that from happening. It’s a tough call. Maybe we should cut taxes and see if that helps.
Musk’s businesses chew through employees kind of like Amazon, he needs a constant stream of desperate poor people to keep making his cars at least until he can replace them all with robots.
I’m just guessing but water has got to be limiting at some point. As does non CO2 enriched air. And helium, what about helium. How are kids supposed to have birthday party balloons?
Is earth’s unique flora and fauna a resource? Because humanity’s expansion absolutely annihilates that. I’d rather not have the only animals existing in a few decades being cows, pigs, chickens, dogs and cats
Whether or not we theoretically could support the current population sustainably (doubt), we are very clearly not doing so. And like all other utopian schemes for a better tomorrow, having a society that does sustainably exist at those population numbers requires us to be a behaviorally different species than the one we have been for the past 500,000+ years.
I guess that fine. Most people in your camp go with Earth just can’t possibly support it. I think that’s a bit a different from, “Well, maybe it could, but people just won’t do what it takes”.