[runesoerensen]

> humanity on the other hand needs to be reduced

The point of view expressed here somewhat ironically show a severe lack of humanity. If anything it seems more humanity is needed here.

It’s not uncommon to hear people talk about various types of population control/reduction while being seemingly oblivious to just how tragic and psychopathic the point of view is.

If you find yourself agreeing with, say, Thanos, and also think it’d be great to see half the world’s population reduced by half, I think that’s a pretty strong signal that you need to really think about what you’re saying and if something can be done to increase your ability to empathize with people in need.

Another approach, that doesn’t involve letting people die, directly or indirectly, through our (lack of) action, would be to address issues that cause long term high population growth, in addition to for instance developing technologies and making cultural/lifestyle changes to accommodate more people on our planet to the extent that’s needed.

[cwkoss]

Population reduction advocates never seem to argue that themselves committing suicide would be the moral choice, which reveals they are valuing the preservation of their own current lifestyle over the lives of the "others".

In practice, it seems like the majority of people who call for population reduction are white/western supremacists who lack empathy for humans born with less privilege.

Birth control should be freely available to every human on the planet. Beyond that, I don't think there is any moral policy available to reduce population.

[fragbait65]

You are probably correct.

I didn't really mean to suggest population control, even though I wrote just that. The problem as I see it is that everybody tries to approach the problem as if it will be solvable by technology.

The only way I see that we can solve a climate crisis or the survival of humanity long term is to actually work together. Which I'm pretty certain will never happen, since there will always be greedy and selfish people.

[cwkoss]

I agree. I believe reducing wealth inequality is the best path towards stable global population. Nearly half of the countries in the world are already below the population replacement rate - and it seems birth rates are inversely correlated with wealth to some extent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...

If we can end war and poverty (and that's a pretty big 'if'), I think global population would stabilize and this would be a non-issue.

[fragbait65]

I'd say wealth and education, but in most counties wealth and education go hand in hand, so I agree with what you say.

[fragbait65]

That's not my point.

My point is that there's no need for population control. The problem will eventually solve itself.

I think humanity is doomed as long as there are egotistical and greedy people and there's nothing you or I can do as individuals.

The problem is lack of resources, so I don't think the problem is solvable with with technology.

And just for reference, I actually am very successful in a field where you do have to empathize with people to be successful. That's actually what makes me bitter, I empathize and all I see is greed and selfishness. It's human nature, and that can't be solved with technology or science.