But you do remain confused on the topic of scarcity due to high population.
I am not confused at all. You believe that I am wrong. But that appears to be based on your failing to understand what I have said, and instead substituting poor guesses at what I might have said.
Your belief that I am wrong isn't confusion on my part. It's just an error you are making.
Scarcity due to high population isn't a thing. Your belief that it
must be a thing is in the same category of heartfelt but factually wrong beliefs as the belief that there's a God, or that Santa beings gifts at Christmas. And your objections to my pointing out the nonexistence of your object of belief are notable for their similarity with the objections raised by religionists. I am not confused; I am just not swallowing your nonsensical belief system.
Scarcity due to stupidity, cruelty, selfishness, lack of investment in infrastructure, investment in selfishly designed infrastructure, and a whole bunch of other problems, now that's a thing.
And while we pointlessly and incorrectly blame "high population", we are failing to even attempt to address the real causes of scarcity.
The lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceans are fucking huge. They can easily support our current population of humans, or any plausible future population, in a luxurious lifestyle, if we apply technology in a less pointlessly selfish way - and we have already made some progress towards that objective.
But instead of working towards further progress, some people have simply decided to hate humanity. Which is absurd, imbecilic, and very human.
Scarcity is everyone's problem, and the solutions are independent of population size.
There was a neat microcosm of this during the Apollo 13 mission.
The three astronauts were threatened by rising CO
2 levels, and this was happening faster than expected, because they had worked out the rate based on ready-reckoners that assumed a Lunar Module population of two, not three.
The CM pilot, who wasn't expected to be there, quipped that perhaps he should hold his breath. But of course, all three men knew that the problem was not able to be resolved by population reduction. If one or even two of them had been able to save the others by suicide, then that option would at the very least have been seriously discussed; But of course, it wouldn't have worked - it would just have delayed the inevitable.
Scarce resources can be used half as fast by half as many people, but that doesn't help, anymore than it would have helped Lovell and Haise, if Swiggart had held his breath.
The only long term fix is technological - we need to recycle resources faster than they turn over naturally. And we have been doing so, in support of increasing population, since at least the neolithic.
Killing people (or even just telling them how large their families are allowed to be), not only constitute inhumane and cruel behaviour; They constitute
completely futile inhumane and cruel behaviour.
Population is the objective. It's not
a problem, much less
the problem.