This kind of discourse is simply disregarding facts to promote a not-my-problem ideology.

The countries that contribute most significantly to greenhouse gas emissions almost always have very low demography. Because of that, if we were to change demography to reach strict population equilibrium in every country without changing countries' emissions per capita, we would actually emit more greenhouse gases.

What facts am I disregarding? As global poverty declines consumption correspondingly goes up. Globalization ensures that the message of consumption wins out. Profits need to be had. Humans are local optimization machines. The only real solution given human psychology is for there to be far fewer people. Until that happens the damage will continue to be done and at an increasing rate.

> The only real solution given human psychology is for there to be far fewer people.

The issue is that even with far fewer people, the emissions for developed countries aren't going to work out.

That is why the population control message is simply deflecting from the actual problem towards population which are for the most part way under the recommended emissions per capita considering the current world's population.

How hard is it to fix your own problems before you try to tell other people what they should do?

this is a myth from the 1970s. it has been debunked countless times (even by history itself), but people still fall back to this.

What is a myth? If there were far fewer people less carbon would be used/extracted. Less trees and natural space would be destroyed. Less plastic would be around. Etc.

There are not enough resources for everyone to live like we Americans. As the world gets richer we’ll collectively destroy more of the environment. This is not disputable.

It is a myth that it is "the only solution". If not everyone can live like Americans (agreed), then we'll all have to find a different way to live. Many of us are working on building that new way of living as we speak.

You may also be interested to know that global population growth has been falling for 60 years and will almost certainly continue to do so. There's no need for anyone to take active measures in this area. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#how-has-t...

Thank you for the clarification on what you meant by “myth”. The rate of population growth has been declining but not the growth of the population. There are far more people now than 60 years ago. There are around 8 billion people and global poverty is decreasing. This means consumption is correspondingly increasing. The pressure on the environment that this causes is enormous. Man made chemicals, plastics, etc. are all over the place. We are shitting on ourselves with our profligacy. The pollution and environmental destruction are getting worse. There are too many people as I see things.

> If there were far fewer people less carbon would be used/extracted.

1 American releases the same amount of co2 as ten people in Benin, let alone the amount of trash and general consumption

This is not about the "amount of people" , it is about percapita numbers and consumption

If everyone consumed like Americans do, we'd need like 4, 5 earth's just to maintain that

Again, it is a matter of co2/per capita

Poverty is on the decline globally and this means consumption correspondingly increases. People in Benin and elsewhere have the same desires as everyone else and they too want to consume at a greater rate. They want things too. Americans are the worst for sure. I think that there are far too many people given humans’ proclivity toward consumption.

How do you back that statement?

Far fewer people means far less environmental destruction.