Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is continue killing trillions of animals a year and polluting the air, water and soil until our biosphere is no longer suitable for many species including humans. At that point we can forget about exploring the stars or whatever.
Degrowth is death. We must adapt or die - this rule of evolution still applies to all of us. Less people is bad. All of us matter but only as long as humanity continues. Degrowth is stagnation. We must survive tho - even at the expenses of the Earth if that is what it takes. We are the highest evolutionary life this planet has produced - the only life able to exploit all other life. The entire purpose of evolution co…
There are currently about 8 billion of us. At some point in the past there were 4 billion of us (Bard tells me the population reached 4Billion on April 11, 1974). We're we somehow worse off when there were 1/2 as many of us on earth? Would we somehow be worse off if we slowly (like over the course of 100 years) returned back to that number? I fail to see how it would be problematic. Somehow we survived and got what we needed to get done in 1974 with only 4B people. If we were to settle back down to that number and stabilize there why would that be a problem? Or, how about stabilizing at 6B?