[ClumsyPilot]

> I cannot understand how come there are so many parents bearing children worldwide.

Because the best thing you can do for the world is to raise children well. If they raise theirs, etc. its a cycle of good over thousands of years, that will have more positive impact than anything you could do in your life as an individual.

[15457345234]

> Because the best thing you can do for the world

Is to not have any children so the population gets back down to sustainable levels

[maxrecursion]

Western societies are already down to around replacement levels with some going below it. It's pretty clear cut as societies evolve that population growth evens out. It's 3rd world countries driving the population growth. Over-population of humans being a danger to the earth has been proven false time and time again.

[vacuity]

Overpopulation needs to be qualified with the context of the living standards. Ten billion vegetarians is probably feasible, but ten billion Americans (we don't currently have as many at such a standard) is a different story.

[vladgur]

You need to watch Idiocracy

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

When some people stop procreating and educating the next generation, the world population does not simply go down. Instead it gets replaced by those who do continue multiplying.

[fingerlocks]

That was a fictional comedy, not a documentary. That’s not how evolution works

[rpmisms]

Please explain how, because if stupid people have more kids, there will be more stupid people.

[15457345234]

The heritability of intelligence and other factors is highly variable.

You want people who will care diligently for their children to have them. Not people who will be largely indifferent to them, whether they're smart or dumb.

The Musk 'I'll have ten and scatter them to the wind with bags of money, the odds will take care of the rest' strategy is not really one that works out well in real life.

[Auracle]

The heritability of intelligence is pretty well established.

Your second point is true, of course.

[rpmisms]

I'm the oldest of 11 kids, and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this. I agree with your second statement, which is why conscientious people should have kids.

[makeitshine]

There are no signs that intelligent people are not procreating. More affluent countries are not procreating, but that does not correlate with intelligence.

[15457345234]

> those who do continue multiplying

So we have to stop the ones who can't stop themselves, fine.

[Apocryphon]

Ah, the Thanos approach to eugenics

[Izikiel43]

The population is at sustainable level, you only need more nuclear power plants

[vacuity]

Can nuclear power plants make livestock less energy intensive to raise?

[makeitshine]

Maybe, but our lifestyles are not sustainable.

[throwaway6734]

massive population collapse will be disastrous for modern societies.

Who will do the work required to care for the elderly population?

[temporarara]

I'm all for having as many children as you can raise, and caring about old people, but interpret the following how you wish. It is a highly anomalous thing in the history that ordinary people receive real medical care when they are unable to do basic tasks themselves. You might have some basic care if your children care about you, but that's about it, and that might be our future and there's very little we can do about it except enabling policies that make having children viable option for those who want to have children.

[scotty79]

Only 5% of people work in agriculture and 15% in industry. So we could reduce the workforce by 80% if only people would groom their own dogs themselves and just die when their time comes.

And if not healthcare is another 15%. But you probably can shave off a little from all those numbers if you exclude the time devoted to desperately trying to sell things to each other in the economy of abundance.

[Dig1t]

We could 10x the human population and still be sustainable. Your idea of sustainable is a common misconception.

[Erratic6576]

What makes humanity unsustainable is not the amount of human but the unleashed greed of a minority.

100 billion aborigines would pollute less than a handful of western oligarchs

[makeitshine]

Given that we're quickly destroying the environment we need to survive and have enough nuclear weapons pointed at one another to annihilate civilization multiple times over, it seems that a lot of people thousands of years ago didn't raise their kids well enough.

Maybe instead of having more children as the OP notes, we can take care of the tens of millions of neglected ones we already have, or try to work towards providing a healthier environment for those who are already here. The idea that we need more, when we're currently screwing up the ones we have, is silly.