Jim Ley writes:

nope, I looked at ways to reduce population, there's either killing
poeple, or not having any more born ...

The latter is the usual method.

... the not having any more born was covered too ...

Covered?

... it's just as a naiive solution as you normally come up
with.

If you don't control births and you don't kill anyone, nature will
kill everyone. You're saying that the only possible scenario is
widespread poverty, disease, famine, and death?

... not having new children born does nothing but make matters
worse for those who are still alive.

How so?

Of course, every human society we've seen has smaller birthrates as
they get richer, and that is natural, because you can invest more in
the individual child, so decreasing poverty is likely going to do a
lot more than your simplistic advice which does nothing but harms
individuals.

It's hard to decrease poverty when the population is doubling every
few years and more than half the people alive are still dependents
themselves.

Are you a communist perhaps?

No.

Not let people have any children for the "greater good" ?

No. I think people should be restricted in the number of children
they can have, but obviously reproduction cannot be completely
prohibited.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.