> So any discussion about population growth in that context sounds like an (intended?) distraction from the actual necessary means. I'm only saying that we sho

> So any discussion about population growth in that context sounds like an (intended?) distraction from the actual necessary means. I'm only saying that we should think about population growth in addition to other measures. Also, it's not about limiting population growth but actually reducing the number of people living on this planet as quickly as possible. In the long term, I can't see a more effective way to save resources. > what if the average Chineese citizen would emit as much carbon and the average American one? Then global carbon dioxide emissions would rise by ~10%. It wouldn't make much of a difference, as serious negative effects from climate change seem to be unavoidable. But this doesn't mean "game over". Mankind is a lot more resilient than you seem to think. That's why there's still a need for long-term thinking (centuries, not decades).