Not the OP, but I share hir antisocial attitude. But here's how I frame it: humans are a result of an undirected design process whose only quality metric is re

Not the OP, but I share hir antisocial attitude. But here's how I frame it: humans are a result of an undirected design process whose only quality metric is reproductive fitness. As a side effect of this process, we ended up with brains that care about things other than reproductive fitness, things like beauty and mathematical elegance and self-actualization and discovery for its own sake. As a consequence of this, we ended up inventing birth control. That invention is distinguished among human inventions because it is an immediate existential threat to our short-term reproductive fitness: genes that make brains that choose not to have children don't reproduce as well (in the short term) as genes that make brains that, say, have an instinctive revulsion against using birth control, and which (say) take seriously the idea that the Creator of the Universe commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. The problem is that those people still have access to the leverage provided by technology, and so now they pose an existential threat to civilization by way of carbon emissions. So it's not so much "good one" vs "bad ones" as brains that optimize for short-term reproductive fitness vs ones that don't. It's not an epic struggle between good and evil, it's just, quite literally, evolution in action. Like all living things, I want "my side" to win. The tricky bit is deciding where "my side" ends and "the other" begins. Everyone has to struggle with that.