poopkins

I'm confused about your comment. Can you elaborate?

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Continuing to fixate on short-term problems like bridging a generational gap—which incidentally we've survived many times in anthropological history—by continuing policies with long-term ramifications is not a good plan.

At some point we need to come to terms with the fact that continuous population growth is not tenable. Whether the population cap is 10 billion or 100 billion, the fact of the matter is that we will eventually hit it. We can't keep procrastinating because we're unwilling to resolve the challenges you've mentioned in a more effective manner.

Call me an optimist, but if we're unable to change our habits as a species, perhaps a well-needed revolution will kick us into action.

How many humans should we aim to have, long term? 20 billion? 50 billion? We're already on track to reach 10 billion in the next 25 years.

I believe that as a society, we should have a long-term plan and a goal for our species's population count, because simply offering incentives for continued growth in order to continue funding generational gaps in our pyramid scheme of social welfare is untenable. Ultimately we will reach the logistical capacity of a functional welfare state, to say nothing of all the other problems.

It's odd that this should need to be pointed out, but allow me help. The line was added to suggest it is a possible DUI. Driving under the influence of drugs is generally recognized as a contributing factor to accidents.