It's a very arrogant comment indeed. A human's permitted CO2 output should not depend on how much she/he contributes to science or even the GDP.

Anyway, earth could very well sustain even 20 billion people according to Martin Rees (in "On the Future"). It does require that we really reduce our resource usage, however. Going vegan, using virtual reality instead of travelling etc.

Luckily the trends seem to indicate we won't reach more than 11 billion (which is still way too much at today's resource usage) before the numbers go down.

> Going vegan, using virtual reality instead of travelling etc.

Heck, a trillion or more, if we all agree to be suspended in tanks and fed by tubes!

It is rightfully unpopular, because it's not based on facts. The earth could easily sustain 8B+ people if certain countries do not over-consume as they are currently. But you are right, people are selfish, especially these over-consumers.

I think it's better for 2B billion to enjoy life, than for 20B to live under some miserable constraints.

Pretty stupid thing to say. UN predicts 11B humans at peak. Certain new studies predict 9.7B. Global average birth rate is already close to replacement levels.

The earth population that can enjoy life is not fixed at 2B, that's very myopic thinking. We should fund science & tech so that it's possible for 11B people to enjoy life without damaging the planet, instead of blaming the "others" based on racist anti-science attitudes and deliberately keeping them poor by punishing them economically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBAxcJDSsc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

http://www.overpopulation.world/

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/

https://www.gapminder.org/