>>1484325>You're argument that my naive, simplistic solution won't work is invalid because you didn't solve the problem yourself!Are you serious?
>>1484326Oh gosh I said a slightly wrong number you sure got me. Population growth is projected to slow dramatically to equilibrium levels. Furthermore, almost all of that growth is occurring is developing nations, which means killing off half the US or something would do literally nothing to stop it, other than maybe cut down the humanitarian aid they get.
>>1484328human nature isn't just "raaaaaaaagh growth". As quality of life increases and infant mortality decreases, people have fewer children. Again, most first-world countries are already barely at equilibrium in terms of births and deaths. "Human nature" is to have the necessary number of children needed to pass on your genes, and when there's little to no risk of your kids dying, that number is 1-2 children.
Also, like
>>1484337 said, a lot of these countries are adopting more sustainable technologies right from the get-go.
