I wasn't planning to answer but question marks sometimes bug. Sorry for the delay. > Taking this as true (it very evidently isn't), then since Europe already h

I wasn't planning to answer but question marks sometimes bug. Sorry for the delay. > Taking this as true (it very evidently isn't), then since Europe already has declining birth rates, the logic step would be to prevent migration no? An influx of people would hurt. It's more directional than an end goal - for example 10 people is far too few, I'd expect living conditions to collapse. But if the population grows exponentially, there will eventually be too many. There's some optimum and it is probably far lower than 8 billion (I haven't run any numbers, I'd hazard 100-500 million people a continent, maybe lower). > You say this as if this "amazing outcome" came out of nowhere, magically. People are forced into this because finances make it hard. That is not very nice. This argument comes up a lot but it doesn't really make sense. Our ancestors had kids while living in conditions that we'd consider bad even for someone impoverished. I get that someone might not have kids because they feel that'd crimp their lifestyle but it is clear that they're setting their expectations high. The position is often literally "if I can't maintain the most comfortable lifestyle of anyone in my evolutionary history I won't have kids" - I meet a lot of people who wouldn't put up with conditions their parents had. That is a choice. > Why would this happen? From your comment, it doesn't seem to be something to expect? I dunno. I don't pay much attention to Africa. > This sentence is so extremely out of touch as to be insulting. I recommend deep breaths. Always a good option in times of stress.