Mention the idea of lowering the population on Earth to allow more resources per person or consuming less to pollute less and it's "It's against human nature" a

Mention the idea of lowering the population on Earth to allow more resources per person or consuming less to pollute less and it's "It's against human nature" and "Absolutely impossible" and "Fusion or fission will make that unnecessary, we should grow forever." Eugenics is edgy and the idea deserves an edgy death. I hate to give a glib dismissal, but what else is there to say on that topic? No one can do it short of becoming the next AI overlord empire. It's like wishing for anti-gravity. It'd be quite convenient, but how? We've also seen how well China's "one child per family" mandate worked out, so we even have evidence that it doesn't seem to work. I almost don't want to entertain the question due to the trainwreck of a thread that might ensue, but I've been pleasantly surprised by HN before. I think prompting can make the difference. So: If we all promise to be very substantive, how might it be possible to implement "population control"? This is probably the ultimate test of self-control, too. Can intellectualism prevail over the urge to strike down an idea? Let's find out. You'll need to be very substantive in your response if you're to have any hope of thoughtful conversation, so please don't put in a halfhearted effort into the opportunity of your choosing. Everyone's listening -- what do you propose?