Don't worry about the insects, see the last quote: As the scent of 82 proof alcohol that preserves the bugs wafted, just a little, through the room, a reporter asked if, at this rate, all the insects were going to disappear. “Oh, don’t worry,” said Mr. Sorg, the wasp expert. “All the vertebrates will die before that.”
However, agreeing that we are indeed hastening the next mass extinction, might be a good start to avoiding/postponing it.
its really hard to have a serious conversation about population control. It's just one of those topics that immediately label you as some kind of crazy murdering nut-job in the eyes of lots of people.
Honestly, it may not have been super effective for certain reasons, but China's child limit laws are about the least crazy solution I can think of.
Population control probably isn't necessary. No one (informed) thinks that the human population is going to grow out of control. It's likely to become stable at around 10-11 billion within 100 years. Birth rates are declining in developed countries and the undeveloped world is rapidly developing.
Honestly, evolution says that it won't. Long-term, breeders will "out-compete" those that limit their household size. Without external political forces or wholesale genetic engineering, we're in for a rough ride.
There are various examples where breeders did not outcompete, and instead a population settled on a low birth rate. Any animal that is not predator-dominated, really, but the best-known examples are New Zealands Kakapo [1] and Panda bears [2].
It isn’t necessary only if massive inequality persists, and our tech just plain saves us all. What a crazy fucking bet when the stakes are the future of human civilization.
I think many people probably like the idea, but are worried about implementation.
Example: I think everyone should be sterilized at birth, but it should be reversible at no cost to them. But I can't think of a single government that I'd trust to enact this policy correctly without falling into a Eugenics system.
Surely that is an argument about how resources should be allocated? Should resources go to a large number of poorer people or a smaller number of more wealthy people?
Also, the catch is that development tends to reduce population growth. India (for example) may be growing rapidly now, but if they succeed in eliminating poverty then population will stabalise at some point. People will simply have fewer kids. So why not just wait until population stabalises naturally?
We don’t really have until “some point” especially when Indians and Chinese people all understandably want a slice of what the West largely has hoarded; luxury. Spread that over 7-11 billion and we’re just screwed barring miraculous new tech. Granted that people want and probably deserve roughly equal lives, the only viable solution is to spread the resources out over fewer people.
However, agreeing that we are indeed hastening the next mass extinction, might be a good start to avoiding/postponing it.