Would make little difference. Majority of consumption is coming from small percentage of the world's population. If everyone on the planet consumed at the rate of the top 1% we'd need 10s of earths. Plus it's also dog whistle. Who should decrease the population? Western white people?

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.

> If everyone on the planet consumed at the rate of the top 1% we'd need 10s of earths.

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.

I think the developed nations can learn a lot from those who currently consume orders of magnitude less. About values and worth and happiness. And equally can invest back much of what they took from them historically into helping them develop in a sustainable way. Not through some sort of white saviour nonsense or though some drive to sell them stuff in the long term, but though financial reparations and cancelling debt, coupled with releasing IP, patents and removing any other protectionist policies.