Overpopulation is overblown
Why proponents of population reduction engage in a logical fallacy
From ancient times until the Renaissance, philosophers were primarily concerned with the nature of the universe. Like children, they were interested in how to understand what things are made of, how to live properly, and how to learn things.
Beginning with Descartes and becoming ever more extreme with 20th century philosophers such as Heidegger and Wittgenstein, existentialists, Camus and Sartre, and the postmodernists Derrida and Foucault, we became like teenagers, ever more preoccupied with ourselves, particularly our language, asking whether it has anything to do with the world.
Science and technology have given us enormous power now, however, to ask questions about our future as a species. We have found that we can change the planet for good or ill. And it is only a matter of time before we invent beings that are smarter and perhaps wiser than we are.
Automation continues to replace livelihoods in the wealthier parts of the world. We can look to a day where no human being need work, if we choose, as a global society, to enable that dream. Whether this creates a new flowering of human freedom or conversely a global existential crisis, depends much on having a purpose for humanity other than mere survival.
