If we are allowed to make random hypotheticals (like "if our world population had stabilised"), how about this one: The world population stabilizes, prosperity grows as it does, but the delinking of wealth generated and carbon emissions doesn't happen: We'd be emitting just as much carbon as we are, or possibly more (aren't you overpopulation advocates also constantly claiming that overpopulation is the main reason poor countries stay poor?)
That seems to be one possible scenario, yes. I've not said that wealth and emissions are not related or that there isn't an uneven distribution. That the wealthiest contribute disproportionately to emissions is quite well accepted and if their relative contribution could be reduced, that would help, yes.
That aside, we have to work with what we have. What we have is a situation where, short of killing 5 billions of healthy individuals, there is no way to get us down to two billion within a reasonable time frame. Even if birth's dropped to 0 today and stayed at 0 indefinitely, it'd take at least 50 and more likely over 60 years before we reached that number: There's in the order of 2 billion people under the age of 15 alive today. So unless you're willing to commit the largest genocide in human history with a victim count two orders of magnitude above the runner-up, this is not a viable corner from which to tackle the problem.
On the other hand, the technology to replace fossil fuels with other energy sources and/or extract carbon from the atmosphere to balance the emissions is available today. Unless genocide is an option for you, worrying about "over"population is thus simply a massive waste of time.
In the post you linked to it was suggested that increased family planning initiatives alone could achieve a 16-29% cut in emissions by 2050 and 37-41% by the end of the century. That surely cannot be a waste of time, even if those figures are optimistic and only lesser effects could be obtained. And could we stop with the genocide red herring too?
And, '"you overpopulation advocates"? I suppose soon we'll be hearing the word "overpopulationists" or something. Always has to be 'us' and 'them', is that it?
Even though no one has yet shown that there are people saying population or overpopulation is the only problem or the main solution and ignoring other issues, let alone that such a position is widely acceptable or akin to a religion. Again, for about the 4th time, who are these people? Where is this supposed wide acceptance of that position? Should it even matter if some do exist who say that? Shouldn't reasonable people be eschewing extreme and simplistic positions in either direction?
And the OP is demonstrably not an example of it just for including population alongside several other factors.
And I myself have repeatedly said that I have mainly been doing population in the thread specifically in order to make the case that it is a part of the problem, since it was suggested otherwise. I have said I'm quite happy to agree that dramatic and rapid increases in world population are not the only cause and that population growth reduction initiatives not necessarily the most pragmatic parts of the solution, albeit they could be incorporated as part of a multi-pronged approach with stronger focuses elsewhere.
On a supposedly rationalist forum it should not be too hard for intelligent and reasonable people to acknowledge that population is an issue, along with several others, even if not the only one or the main target for countermeasures, without this unfortunate and somewhat pointless regress into bickering about goodies and baddies.
