No, I simply believe that you attempting to exert control over the birth rates of people you don't know is an ethical no go, regardless whatever "scientific" ba

No, I simply believe that you attempting to exert control over the birth rates of people you don't know is an ethical no go, regardless whatever "scientific" basis you think you have. > The arguments of neomalthusians are not correct, because birth rates plateau in response to lots of external forces And attempting to engineer those things to an end of changing birth rates is starkly dangerous territory, nor will a pattern always hold. Not all cultures have less kids upon becoming more educated. > What would you say of native peoples whose land is being made unlivable by the climate crisis and loss of biodiversity? There was a young woman attempting to collect signatures to "stop burning the rainforest". I asked her if she understood that those burns came from people who lived there, often the poor, who were attempting to farm. She doubled down that it was wrong. So I asked what she would have them do instead. Would she be willing to give them different land? A different place to live? It's easy to make "other" people sacrifice at no cost to yourself. When you have to directly compensate them, suddenly people change their tune. "Collective good", "save the children" and so on are red herrings. Of course we want the commons to be well treated and the children safe, but how often is that action actually achieving that? How much more often is it merely control by a minority?