Even a pro-natalist like Morland, who describes himself as “unapologetically rightwing”, accepts that humanity must have a population limit. But he argues that its decline needs to be better managed and should be delayed until AI and robotics can replace labour.

So let me understand Morland’s view here. He believes in right-wing, thus most likely is against government assistance for new families (I feel i may be taking a leap here, being Canadian and feeding my view of right wing here). However he doesn’t want people to give up on having kids prior to AI and robotics being able to replace labour.

Both of these things are years off. Some AI skeptics feel AI is decades off being able to replace labour in a significant way. Tesla recently had robots that couldnt even handle being bartenders without people controlling them. Thus his answer is… to nag people to go through worse lives and have kids (due to the costs/time commitments, I’m not trying to Slag off having kids here, the joy you get is wonderful, I’m just pointing out the costs and sacrifices) until they fix the issues? I know they didn’t write an answer attributed to him, but I really don’t understand his position here. We seem to hit a point where I, personally, would be questioning my own rightwing beliefs.

Very good point, I didn’t mean to conflate it happened in the last 100 years, more so the data of their deaths that I had access to had that timeliness.

Sweet, that’s good to know. WWF needs to update their website. Too many chairs to the face I think.

https://wwf.ca/species/tigers/#:~:text=Sadly%2C tigers are on the,of all remaining wild tigers.

Probably humans, given they went from 100k to 5.6k in population in 100 years and are still in decline.