Uhu..
And how do we decide which people we don't want to exist? Is it last in first out? - "we were here first"?
As one of the 8 billion on this earth, I'm rather happy being alive. And would love to give that gift to someone else. As many as possible, in fact. You're proposing a world where I should be happy not to have my siblings in my life. Which is absolutely insane. Your view only makes sense from the POV of those surviving or being the lucky chosen ones.
I'd rather have my siblings + have to figure out how to fix issues with water supply etc. along the way, than not have my siblings and not have meaningful 'problems' to work on.
We've solved harder problems. Throwing 7 billion people under the bus, because a problem seems a little hard, seems idiotic.
How many? 20 billion? 50 billion? 1 trillion? That Star Trek: ToS episode "The Mark of Gideon" where the planet is so overpopulated that privacy does not exist and it's a rare privilege to be alone?
> I should be happy not to have my siblings in my life
How unhappy should I be that my parents decided to not have more kids, when I could have had more siblings? Should I criticize their decision to prioritize parental attention and the family's economic well-being over me being one of 12 kids like my grandfather?
The US state where I was born and raised has 3x the population now as compared to when I was born. Wild, isolated places I enjoyed have been replaced by row upon row of houses. Roads that were empty and fast are now white-knuckled congestion.
I would love to give that gift of wilderness to someone else. You are proposing a world where everything is dedicated towards human habitation. Your view only makes sense from the POV of someone who doesn't care about natural places, or being the lucky chosen one who can afford their own reserve.
> We've solved harder problems.
You are mistaken. We've delayed harder problems. As Norman Borlaug ("father of the Green Revolution") said in his Nobel Prize speech in 1970: "The green revolution has won a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise, the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only"
He was an optimist. "Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth and will adjust the growth rate to levels which will permit a decent standard of living for all mankind."
Balls, they're proposing a world where somebody else, who never had siblings, should be happy not to have siblings. It's nothing to do with people who are already alive or what they're accustomed to.
I reserve judgement on whether this natural phasing out of 7 billion people (through natural deaths) is a good idea or not. Ideally, we'd cure death, which makes the plan unethical.
LOL, there's so many people who hate being alive, you don't know if your kids will be happy or not. You are betting with an innocent's life, all for your self-satisfaction.
They voluntarily live their lives and have less children. They make the decision.
Contraception is much better than it was before. Women’s education is correlated heavily with having less children.
Elon Musk and people that think like him are the ones bemoaning it and trying to encourage them to have more children. But scratch below the surface — the reasons these “pronatalists” have stated are quite interesting.
If you want to go the other way, consider Pavel Durov’s approach of sperm banks and fathering over 100 children he won’t have to take care of. A great way to propagate your DNA of course!
But consider the Categorical Imperative … what would happen if everyone did it?
As one of the 8 billion on this earth, I'm rather happy being alive. And would love to give that gift to someone else. As many as possible, in fact. You're proposing a world where I should be happy not to have my siblings in my life. Which is absolutely insane. Your view only makes sense from the POV of those surviving or being the lucky chosen ones. I'd rather have my siblings + have to figure out how to fix issues with water supply etc. along the way, than not have my siblings and not have meaningful 'problems' to work on.
We've solved harder problems. Throwing 7 billion people under the bus, because a problem seems a little hard, seems idiotic.