>>12409851Pentii admirer here. Since no one seems interested in debating the original thesis I will play "devils advocate" and take the opposing view.
The following are not my views, but rather objections which I imagine a rational opponent might propose.
1) We have no conclusive evidence that over population is the prime cause for environmental decline. It can be argued that the world can sustain a far higher population than current ( approx 7.7 billion ) through more efficient use of resources and technological progress.
2) Data suggests world population, even in developing countries, will level off and become stable at just over 10 billion by 2100.
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth3) Sustainable alternative energy supplies will replace fossil fuels and therefore reduce the impact of human activity on the environment.
Given the above it seems although we haven't seen the worse of environmental destruction we certainly are not heading towards some doomsday scenario. We should accept the damage has been done and live in a generally impoverished world as a result, but there is no need to be cutting off the hands of those who would cling to the lifeboat.
With that there is no need to rescind human rights, which otherwise guarantee, in name at least, the quality of legal rights enjoyed at a bare minimum, and which help assist in maintaining the levels of education and self improvement which alleviate world poverty, itself a main contributor to population growth.
