>>513066589
Just eyeballing it, it looks like we have fewer young people than in 1950 but over 10x as many old people. I suppose the guy you're replying to would just say that's great and the old people can just die, neglecting that slightly older generations will now compete for resources with slightly younger generations, rather than giving them direction and employment opportunities like they should.

He also doesn't seem to understand that every human is three things: a liability, a resource, and the end in itself. To demonstrate what I mean by that, every human needs to eat, but you need farmers to grow food (which they can become more efficient at if you have scientists), and a full pantry has no value in an empty house.

Rather than diminishing our fellow humans, what we should be doing is fostering their ability to contribute to society, while not treating them as either a pest nor a soulless machine.

The ancient Greeks believed the Earth would become overpopulated within a few generations, and so did figures like Thomas Malthus in the 18th century, yet the facts speak for themselves. It turns out that humans don't merely extract resources from the environment; they create value.

One thing worth pointing out is that Delhi and NYC have roughly the same population density while quality of life is far better in NYC. You might say NYC is a shithole, but it's still better, not to mention Manhattan is at an all time pppulation low while being at one of it's worst points as far as quality of life. Comparing the two cities (or NYC to itself 40 years ago), the difference is with the quality of people.