the irony is supporting depopulation in one area will just reward population increase in another, and supporting population increase somewhere will decrease it

the irony is supporting depopulation in one area will just reward population increase in another, and supporting population increase somewhere will decrease it somewhere else. not sure the specific rule at play, but it seems to have to do with all things expanding to consume their available capacity. north america and the West effectively ended teen motherhood and reduced the birthrate to below replacement rate, but populations have still skyrocketed from immigration because that gap made the economic capacity available. the presumption in not worrying about depopulation is that people globally are interchangeable. Seeing humanity as an undifferentiated, homogeneous mass conflates sophisticated cultures with undeveloped ones and presumes you are somehow both above them all and can manage it, instead of being respectable peers in different and separate cultures. it's a fatal conceit as we are seeing play out in european cities today. That's the begged question in all this post-national global homogenization stuff. No nations, one humanity, and yet under whose governance and dominion? The thing about global governance is that if there is no alternative, there can be no consent, or even conscience, either. So from the perspective of a member of a tiny global minority with a sub-replacement birthrate, depopulation isn't fine at all, really.