What a confusing read. I largely can't discern the sarcasm from impassioned outrage. Nor am I certain that "any decrease in population is catastrophic" is the message that I was meant to receive, but that is what I got out of it. I've heard this argument before and I have never been able to piece together the logic. My best guess is that it's mainly a difference in perspective, and somebody's
catastrophic is to me simply
worse than what we have now.
Yes, there will be a time when things are worse. Rise and decline is a pattern in pretty much every facet of every trend that I can think of. Nothing goes up forever. Just because Earth's population flatlines at 10m, doesn't mean humanity is heading straight for extinction. I mean, it's possible. But far more likely is that at some point, for some reason, things turn back around and the population starts growing again. In the meantime, overpopulation and underpopulation both come with their own problems, and I'm not sure which is worse. We're only ~300 years into the industrial revolution after all. Maybe it's time for a little pullback. That is healthy for the real long-haul.
Sure, none of us actually wants to be a part of the hard times. We would rather the great-great-great-grandchildren that we've never met and never will be the ones to bear that burden. But somebody's going to have to deal with it eventually, and yes, it could be you (and me). Meanwhile, having a smaller number of people on the planet (while creating some problems that we had forgotten about) will surely also make some things easier. If literally no one wanted to have kids anymore, it might be a real problem. This is just another urban perspective; I could believe that no one in a city wants to have kids anymore. At least some of us forest dwellers are still breeding like rabbits.