The question in my mind is should we restrict quality of life, or restrict population to allow for individuals to live the quality of live they desire? We have limited resources and I think we're overpopulated. I wonder what the morality/ethics are of bringing more people into the world while restricting their quality of life and freedom to make choices.
That wasn't the implication. Limiting birth rates would be a reduction in quality of life. However, there's a trade off. If there are multiple daily quality of life restrictions, then those could outweigh the singular restriction on reproduction. Also, the reproductive choice has consequences, potentially negative ones, on the others who are already living. If we want to discuss limiting diets, vehicles, housing, and all other things that are tied to consumption, then perhaps reasonable limits on reproduction should be discussed as well.
The areas with highest quality of life have declining population, so your premise is flawed.
Obviously the solution is to increase our resource usage. If we had abundant clean energy (e.g. nuclear, maybe even wind/solar) none of this would be a problem.
"The areas with highest quality of life have declining population, so your premise is flawed."
Which premise, and how so?
"Obviously the solution is to increase our resource usage. If we had abundant clean energy (e.g. nuclear, maybe even wind/solar) none of this would be a problem."
I fail to see how this solves all our problems. How does this replace things like metals, plastics, all agricultural products, over fishing, deforestation, etc?
