Its disingenuous to only point out only the positive network effects of having more people and not negative ones such as: - Global Warming (https://academic.ou

Its disingenuous to only point out only the positive network effects of having more people and not negative ones such as: - Global Warming (https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/32/2/150/1610588 https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/32/2/150/1610588) - Happiness level https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/06/the-price-of-happiness-in-cities/487823/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/06/the-price-of-happines... - Pollution rates (along with cancer rates) https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-most-polluted-cities-in-the-world-ranked/ https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-most-polluted-cities-in... I never said the word "over-population" because such concept is so emotionally charged and too subjective; the threshold for over-population depends heavily in the amount of resources available and the ability (and willingness) to distribute them; the same number of people that is normal today may be over-population tomorrow depending on how much damage we do to our own resources in the next years due to climate change or other major negative issues with uncountable repercussions in human life. Also we need to be talking numbers; does such positive network effects continue after 10 billion humans? 20 billion? 100 billion? Surely even in that optimistic theory there must be a limit. BTW claiming that wanting less humans is anti-human is extremely disingenuous and probably an ad-hominem of sorts, e.g. its more pro-sharks to have 2 well-fed ones in an aquarium than 20 that will live starving lives.