> That would be a society where you tell people "you're not allowed to have kids", and you enforce it through law. Do you think it's reasonable to forbid people

> That would be a society where you tell people "you're not allowed to have kids", and you enforce it through law. Do you think it's reasonable to forbid people from having kids if they want to? That sounds like a terrible thing to do. Can you come up with a less terrible alternative? Think of any animal populations, be it seals or starfish or lizards or anything. When the environment is optimal there is a big boom in their numbers. When the environment changes there is a huge die-off. Humans have the benefit of advanced technology to smooth out these environmental bumps. But, nothing can grow to infinity so there will be those die-offs at some point. Hypothetically, if we could plan out the next million years of humans on Earth, would it be better to hold a population level that could adapt to anything, or to go for the unlimited growth boom/bust cycles of nature?