At last, I hear the echo, after at least 10 years, of a fellow voice reading the writing on the wall and coming to the same basic conclusion. Ok, so your approach is basically at a higher level. Mine is essentially to achieve two things. Firstly to reduce the human suffering to the lowest level we can and secondly to try and ensure there is some type of civilisation that survives the coming Apocalypse. The current migrant problems in the EU are the first tremors of what will come.

That can only achieved by one method, reducing the worlds population on a global scale. The biggest problem is achieving a realistic agreement to do that. Individual countries, such as South Korea, succeded in reducing the number of births from nearly 7 per female to about 1. They are now trying to stop it going down further.

One stumbling block is Democracy itself. There are political event horizons, namely the coming elections and/or the ones after that. The whole system is not geared at all to following a 60+ year plan. To briefly cite some figures. Let us assume that 50%. of the population will fall by the wayside. By 2080 we could reduce the worlds population by half with the right global political will and I do not support bad methods such as forced abortions/sterilisations.

So in 2080 we would have around 4Bn global population. This would greatly reduce the need for food, water and energy, the existing resources would last a lot longer, giving us more time to find the right solutions. When calamity arrives, there will be a loss of 2Bn. On the other hand, if we are then at 10Bn, if not more, then 5Bn are going to disappear and the difference between that and 2Bn is enormous. Some resources, particulary metals, such as Alumnium, will have disappeared. The have insufficent food, etc, will go where there appears to be some and get it, by force if necessary. Starving people obey no laws!

Another stumbling block is Capitalism. Already it is struggling with lack of demand in many sectors, to the point where it is advocating a Standard Basic Income for all as a solution. If the demand reduces further, because the population is decreasing, then it will oppose it as mightily as it can to avoid crashing down, which will probably happen anyway. I accept that the problems can be mitigated by various other actions (though I do not share your confidence in those required all happening), but none will have such a large effect as a planned and implemented world wide population reduction. It seems we could try for a classic pincer movement, how say you?