The global population is still increasing. Furthermore, as poor countries develop this is compounded by increased consumption (both resources and energy) per capita. In that respect, "richest 1% account for more emissions than poorest 66%" should be interpreted as very worrying when the poorest are getting richer.
Ultimately we don't anyone to be poor. At current population levels this would probably mean a total collapse of the environment.
Overall, the global population is indeed the root cause of our problems.
To have that position you basically need to reconcile two positions that to me aren't really compatible, unless someone explains it to me.
Either it's fine for Earth to not have humans and just exist peacefully with the rest of the ecosystem until another lifeform takes over.
Or it's not fine for the Earth to have no more humans and so we need to stop climate change from making the Earth uninhabitable for us, but if to do that we want to reduce the humans, I don't get it.
To "kill" humans to save humans seems weird. I guess you can slide on the scale of "more people living worse", or "less people living better", but to choose who is not possible in my opinion, so this is not implementable.
Because if you care about the Earth primarily, then warming or not doesn't really matter, it's just a geological event like many more gnarly ones over the history of meteorite impacts and so on.
But if you care primarily about the humans, then how can the answer be to have less of them? And pick and choose who gets to reproduce?
Population is already naturally decreasing in a fair number of countries. Let's embrace this instead of panicking and trying to reverse the trend.
The bulk of what I value about the future of humanity is our continued existence and collective ability to do beautiful and impressive things together, not the individual existence of some as-yet-unborn hypothetical humans in that future. I don't think humanity's output scales linearly with population and I don't think there's much moral worth to future individuals outside their general contribution to wider human civilisation.
There is no consistent way environmentalists can argue their way out of this particular point you made:
> But if you care primarily about the humans, then how can the answer be to have less of them? And pick and choose who gets to reproduce?
To somebody else it means just living life.
There is no way to objectively argue superiority of one over the other except from a religious worldview.
> The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment.
Look, what if you could choose between:
Option A: The 50% lowest polluting part of the world's population never existed. Would this make a dent towards global warming? No. Perhaps slow the onset by a few years. The overall magnitude of the problem would be the same.
Option B: Through reduced consumption and technology, reduce emissions of the 50% highest polluters by 80%. This would have a quite massive impact towards global warming AND also help when the 50% poorest increase their living standards.
Given these -- how can you say that "population" overall, without further qualification, is the problem?
Another factor here is that population growth isn't something that will continue as/if people are lifted out of poverty -- when people become richer and more educated, the birth rates invariably drops.
There are many other good comments on this page now about why you are wrong citing statistics and research reports, I encourage you to read them.
And both are a function of the population and are people get out of poverty use of energy and resources per capita only increases, compounding the overall impact, as already said.
If we were 500 million globally, for instance, we would not be having this discussion because there would be no problems.
I am not wrong, this is just a statement of fact. I am always surprised by this ostrich syndrome many have in absolutely refusing to consider that population is an issue, the key issue, even.
If you care about the well being of dogs, how can the answer be to have less of them crammed in your tiny apartment?
It’s about balance. It is not true that more of something is unambiguously good, for itself or the system as a whole.
You should read about how reintroducing wolves, a carnivore that kills other animals, made the Yellowstone ecosystem flourish.
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-r...
Or the case of Macquarie Island.
https://archive.is/2020.10.21-044800/https://www.nytimes.com...
Or the deer of Manitou Island.
https://www.interlochenpublicradio.org/2022-03-04/unnatural-...
Or, or, or. We have tons of examples.
> If we were 500 million globally, for instance, we would not be having this discussion because there would be no problems.
But this aside, let's assume you are right.
Which 500 million would you preserve? How would you get there before climate change is irreversible anyway due to melting tundra etc?
Especially given that a lot of human history can be summed up as "wars to determine WHICH one will be the surviving set of humans to survive on limited resources". So which billions do you think will go willingly?
-- Yes, of course, assuming that this magically just happened it would solve the problem. So would a number of other unrealistic solutions that has nothing to do with population control. Are we going to discuss which one out of a number of completely unrealistic uptopias are best?
I see your 500 million inhabitant world, and raise with imagining a world with a population of 20 billion, with a million nuclear plants, no use of fossil fuels, LED-powered vertical farming, centralization of populations in big cities to let wildlife grow back and focus all efforts in responsible, non-disruptive mining of the resources needed.
Which one of those is more or less preferable or realistic is pointless, and distracting from possibilities that may be within reach.
Regarding the superiority of worldviews, sure, subjectivity applies and we could go down the rabbit hole of discussing that - but the comment I was replying to was not about which worldview was better! Vasco said that "Either it's fine for Earth to not have humans ... Or it's not fine ... but if to do that we want to reduce the humans, I don't get it." I'm not going to argue that my values are the best because it's already self-evident to me and I doubt I can improve on the existing work[0], but I am very willing to explain how they're logically consistent.
[0] Via utilitarianism and the repugnant conclusion and onward. I don't think I can do any better than all the philosophers who've debated this.
I mean, you might as well quote me a list of your very personal niche hobbies and the importance of keeping them up as some kind of tradition humanity needs to uphold.
I don't think such a line of argument holds very tight in the grand scheme of things.
To others, enjoying the company of their own children and grandchildren (some of the most commonly shared joys across people, in contrast to niche interests) are far higher up there on their list of priorities of things that make our existence worthwile.
Likewise, utilitarianism won't get you far since the other person must first subscribe to it as a good idea. I don't care about "the greatest good for the majority" in some kind of vague sense whatever it means, if subjectively it means no good to me.