Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's 2 topics that need to be held apart here: 1) Limiting number of children in rich countries. This is what your links talk about I think. Yes, perhaps there is a taboo in place here. Is that relevant to sustainability crisis though? Population is already declining in rich countries, quite naturally. 2) Limiting number of children in poorer countries. Well, as in the article pointed to in a sibling comme…
The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment. The global population is still increasing. Furthermore, as poor countries develop this is compounded by increased consumption (both resources and energy) per capita. In that respect, "richest 1% account for more emissions than poorest 66%" should be interpreted as very worrying when the po…
To have that position you basically need to reconcile two positions that to me aren't really compatible, unless someone explains it to me.
Either it's fine for Earth to not have humans and just exist peacefully with the rest of the ecosystem until another lifeform takes over.
Or it's not fine for the Earth to have no more humans and so we need to stop climate change from making the Earth uninhabitable for us, but if to do that we want to reduce the humans, I don't get it.
To "kill" humans to save humans seems weird. I guess you can slide on the scale of "more people living worse", or "less people living better", but to choose who is not possible in my opinion, so this is not implementable.
Because if you care about the Earth primarily, then warming or not doesn't really matter, it's just a geological event like many more gnarly ones over the history of meteorite impacts and so on.
But if you care primarily about the humans, then how can the answer be to have less of them? And pick and choose who gets to reproduce?