I’ve looked over all of the comments on both population-related posts and I’ll end with a few final observations:

1. A lot of this argument is one of semantics and logic. Many of the population-is-the-problem folks posit the issue like this:

A. Humans are doing destructive things

B. There are lots of humans

C. There is therefore lots of destruction


D. We should dramatically reduce the number of humans 

2. I find this logic self-defeating for two reasons:

A. There isn’t much we can do at this point to get less than 9 billion people by 2050 (which is down from much higher estimates decades ago) so complaining that 9 billion is too much is like shouting at the wind

B. I am convinced that if we focus on A (above)- stopping humans from doing the most destructive behaviors- the Earth can support 9 billion people.

3. There is actually a lot of agreement on what we need to do even if we are on opposite sides of this issue:

A. Do everything we can to improve the lives of women

B. End our dependence on fossil fuels

C. Stop the over-exploitation of the forests and world’s fisheries

D. Stop subsidizing bad activities

and the list goes on.