People do seem to cut back their baby making as they move from agricultural to industrial, itβs just a much slower process than we would prefer to help with this issue.
You are talking about communities subsistence farming with large families, and trying to reduce the size of those families through pushing them to industrialise. but what does it matter? those current families no matter how large, don't consume anything.
But that's exactly the point. Although it's a bit more than the top 1%, more like top 10-15%.
What do you think eradicating poverty and global development means? Exactly that: A developed world means a world consuming the same as, say, Europeans do.
This only works if population is reduced, even drastically reduced because, quite obviously, it does not work with 8+ billion people.
> Who should decrease the population? Western white people?
Who should remain dirt poor? Brown people?
This is ridiculous.
This is a global issue. Poverty should be eradicated globally, the global population should reduce. Do not make it a racial, if not racist, issue.
That is just providing proof that we cannot eradicate poverty on the planet without destroying it in the process with 8 billion human beings. And this is just CO2 emissions but the issue is with consumption of resources in general: What is happening is simply that consumption of resources increases when people are lifted out of poverty (quite obviously since that's pretty much poverty means).
The only sustainable way for human development is to bring global population down at the same time at global standard of living increases.