Based on _what_? Have you actually crunched any numbers, however casually? Have you looked at population trajectories? Have you considered that most people don't live at, or even anywhere close to, your elite level?
While far from definitive, I do play with world population numbers on occasion. My guestimate of world carrying capacity is around 33B people. Sure, it's not what you're used to, but it's sufficient (albeit mundane) food and shelter.
Population replacement rates are falling worldwide. World population is set to peak mid-century. Many first-world countries are facing population reduction at crisis rates, with a few having birth rates so low the country/culture is set to disappear entirely. Insofar as some think there should be fewer people, seems the species is pretty good at handling that without wanton interference.
"Too many people" is easy to say when you're very comfortable, assume everyone else lives as you do, and don't like the idea of having to give way to a few more. Don't forget that half the world's population functions under 1/20th of the official American "poverty line". Funny thing is, if "we could all afford to live like we do today" we'd be complaining about how bad off most people are and arguing for a population reduction to 0.5-0.9 billion so the survivors could live like the top 10%.
In the past (exemplified by _The_Population_Bomb_) similar predictions were made lamenting the world's inability to support X billion people; we're well beyond those feared limits now and doing quite well. Technology (notice which discussion board we're on here) is very good at working out ways of drastically improving resource providence. The problem with food isn't lack thereof - thanks to technology we have more than enough for everyone; the problem with food is politicization of distribution. Insofar as some resources really are limited (and there are valid arguments that fossil fuels et al are not nearly as limited as naysayers claim), high tech enables better/cheaper/sustainable solutions. Problems can be resolved with solutions, some of which are unimaginable now but will be normal in the not-far future.
So the question remains: on what objective grounds can you claim "there is simply too many people in the world"? Why can't Y-Combinator types view the "too many" problem as a challenge for making 7-10B people sustainable & comfortable? 1-2B is a heck of a reduction, presumably beyond mere curbing of procreation; as others ask - are you willing to sacrifice yourself and/or [potential] offspring to get there? and how far are you willing to go to enforce the view on those of us who disagree?
Based on _what_? Have you actually crunched any numbers, however casually? Have you looked at population trajectories? Have you considered that most people don't live at, or even anywhere close to, your elite level?
While far from definitive, I do play with world population numbers on occasion. My guestimate of world carrying capacity is around 33B people. Sure, it's not what you're used to, but it's sufficient (albeit mundane) food and shelter.
Population replacement rates are falling worldwide. World population is set to peak mid-century. Many first-world countries are facing population reduction at crisis rates, with a few having birth rates so low the country/culture is set to disappear entirely. Insofar as some think there should be fewer people, seems the species is pretty good at handling that without wanton interference.
"Too many people" is easy to say when you're very comfortable, assume everyone else lives as you do, and don't like the idea of having to give way to a few more. Don't forget that half the world's population functions under 1/20th of the official American "poverty line". Funny thing is, if "we could all afford to live like we do today" we'd be complaining about how bad off most people are and arguing for a population reduction to 0.5-0.9 billion so the survivors could live like the top 10%.
In the past (exemplified by _The_Population_Bomb_) similar predictions were made lamenting the world's inability to support X billion people; we're well beyond those feared limits now and doing quite well. Technology (notice which discussion board we're on here) is very good at working out ways of drastically improving resource providence. The problem with food isn't lack thereof - thanks to technology we have more than enough for everyone; the problem with food is politicization of distribution. Insofar as some resources really are limited (and there are valid arguments that fossil fuels et al are not nearly as limited as naysayers claim), high tech enables better/cheaper/sustainable solutions. Problems can be resolved with solutions, some of which are unimaginable now but will be normal in the not-far future.
So the question remains: on what objective grounds can you claim "there is simply too many people in the world"? Why can't Y-Combinator types view the "too many" problem as a challenge for making 7-10B people sustainable & comfortable? 1-2B is a heck of a reduction, presumably beyond mere curbing of procreation; as others ask - are you willing to sacrifice yourself and/or [potential] offspring to get there? and how far are you willing to go to enforce the view on those of us who disagree?