You didn't read my wall of text, did you?
Understandable.
You've taken the opposite meaning to what I intended.
lol - of course not.
It's not MY problem if you write too much.
But...why would you lead with something you didn't mean? The only good excuse
is satire, and I don't see that.
In the end, I do agree with you that (paraphrasing here) we gotta do both human extinction and sustainability though.
It's something I'm really, really interested in and I had no idea how many words I had typed until I hit "Post".
Then I thought "nobody's gonna ready that". And I was correct.
I'm gonna have to work hard to limit the words on the extinctions one.
Basically the TLDR version is that birth rate roughly tracks downward according to certain development milestones such as education for girls, employment opportunity for girls, lowering the infant mortality rate, etc.
There are no countries that could remotely be considered "First World" where the fertility rate is sufficient to even maintain their current population (that being 2.1). Fertility rate being the number of children that an average woman produces in her lifetime.
One example I gave was South Korea. Fertility rate in 1960 was 6+. Currently sitting at 1.05 - or about half the rate required to even maintain the population at its current level.
So yeah, development and improvement in quality of life, particularly for women, is by far the most effective population control measure yet devised.