> but the "world that knows it should use its wealth to provide decent sanitation, opportunities, education, peace and justice" doesn't exist anywhere but your head.
Incorrect, that idea exists in the heads of many people, and many of them are doing something about it.
> the things needed to keep that population in a good condition are not manifesting.
Incorrect. Standard of living is improving for most people.
> Essentially we are setting ourselves up for things like massive famines, biological diseases, etc.
I'm open minded and willing to be convinced, but it will take more than a mere opinion. I don't see anything compelling in the news that even suggests this is likely.
> It has nothing to do with happiness, and more people means more people suffering.
So we shall just ignore happiness, but focus on suffering? Got it.
Here are some good papers, there are lots more, but a small primer on what I am talking about.
Bottom line is this, I was replying to the response to this comment "More people living doesn't necessarily mean people living better lives. In a finite world with limits to growth, relaxing one bottleneck only leads to the next bottleneck." that said "this doesn't even make sense"
I'm showing that it does make some sense, though there is plenty of room for debate. I think too many people misinterpreted his comment for Malthusianism.
Incorrect, that idea exists in the heads of many people, and many of them are doing something about it.
> the things needed to keep that population in a good condition are not manifesting.
Incorrect. Standard of living is improving for most people.
> Essentially we are setting ourselves up for things like massive famines, biological diseases, etc.
I'm open minded and willing to be convinced, but it will take more than a mere opinion. I don't see anything compelling in the news that even suggests this is likely.
> It has nothing to do with happiness, and more people means more people suffering.
So we shall just ignore happiness, but focus on suffering? Got it.