Regardless of the controversy on the risks of nuclear energy, don't overestimate it's potential. We simply can't build nuclear plants everywhere we need them. We still mostly need a reduction in energy consumption and deforesting.

France derives 71% of its electricity from nuclear energy. In the US it's around 20%. So while nuclear power can't replace everything, even with current technology they could power the great majority of electricity generation.

Sure we can't simply build them everywhere. But the main barriers to building enough of them to make a big difference aren't technical.

> rapid depopulation

What exactly do you mean by this, and how would you accomplish it? Assuming, that is, that nuclear doesn't work (for whatever reason), as you've drawn a dichotomy.

Or you work on raising living standards, which naturally lowers fertility.

Warming is going to happen. Humanity will adapt. Modern spins on eugenics isn’t an answer and frankly is disgusting.

Careful: having the entire world adopt the living standards of Western countries is about the best way to guarantee that climate change makes the planet inhabitable by 2100.

How about something a little less demonic, like finding an economic system that doesn’t rely on endless growth as a catch-all for humanity’s problems?

Jesus Christ, you're not serious, are you? How evil can you get? The ends do not justify the means.

No, not serious. Just pointing out what the alternative seems to entail.