What part of “naturally contract” implies genocide? I swear, the resistance to understanding is willful.
The ‘under 1 billion’ part implies genocide, because that is literally never gonna happen - in a time frame where we wouldn’t have to rethink housing and nature right now and the next few decades - otherwise without a major worldwide catastrophe. Sure, climate change might take care of it (again, decades away and people need housing now, also, these solutions actually help with climate change) but then we won’t have to worry about silly things like housing ever again.
Or we could promote education, contraception, and contraction of the global population the same way we promote renewable energy - because the ideas are related. Or do you think that there’s no point in trying to fix the problem? Because you clearly don’t seem to hold that opinion about the climate catastrophe, you just refuse to look at population as part of the problem.
That will take well over a century, if not multiple centuries. We need actual plans for living sustainably now, not hundreds of years in the future.
![[meme] How would you rather see this land developed?(lemmy.world)](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f6ec67a5-2636-4875-8dd4-fa5241a3083c.jpeg){kind=link}