Can we agree:

Claim 1: A “sustainable birth rate” is bounded by the efficiency of resource extraction and the repair rate of the environment for the damage the extraction does to it.

Claim 2: It would appear that technology has accelerated so far very closely at the same rate as global population growth.

Claim 3: Our efficiency of resource extraction has sky rocketed.

Claim 4: Our damage to the environment has exceeded its repair rate as this has increased.

Claim 5: A collapsed society would not immediately loose all of its population, and would likely be the most damaging to the environment in the shortest period of time. We won’t forget how to burn oil, but we won’t be using high efficiency well maintained engines when we do it.

With that. Seems like there are two options before humanity:

1. Burn it all down, reduce population growth rate (doesn’t matter if it’s controlled [Mao] or uncontrolled [The West Today]), eventually loose genetic entropy, and before that loose (or automate and replace) the labor force that allowed for the resource extraction.

The outcomes here are:

a) Society collapses (genetic entropy, climate change damage that has already been done, destabilization caused by population reduction measures, etc)

b) We automate labor and humans either are replaced entirely

c) or a small oligarchy of humans exist to rule that automation. That population must keep genetic entropy through gene editing (requires a lot of novel advancement which is harder with fewer people, unless we’re curating)

- or -

2. Address the reasons why people aren’t having kids in the west to maintain labor and genetic entropy, which mainly has to do with economic opportunity of young adults. And ensure that our resource extraction continues more efficient and that we either develop ways to limit damage or ways to accelerate the repair.

Outcomes are:

A) We fail to accelerate repair or reduce damage, and society collapses

B) We succeed and we’ve managed not to damage genetic entropy and don’t risk a conflict over population control.

The problem with option 1 is the implementation won’t be uniform, and population reduction globally cannot be achieved without some type of concerted effort. Consider for a moment how that is supposed to be implemented.

If things go wrong in that effort, that leads to conflict. It seems very likely that society collapses as well.

The other issue is considering the population number as the solution is it is a very short jump to the justification of genocide or some other form or population reduction. That also seems like it would accelerate conflict and therefore society collapse.

The problem with option 2 is there is only so much time before our damage exceeds allowable levels.