Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack
How it is the worst? What value system do you judge that by?
|
Since you didn't specify which "worst" you were referring to, I can answer both.
If you're trying to reduce the population in order to stabilize it, and head off bigger problems due to overpopulation in the future, then I'm pretty sure I already covered it - climate change is an uncontrolled experiment that will almost certainly do a lot of damage, and is likely, but not guaranteed to reduce the population, while increasing the odds of large disasters that can wipe out local groups.
Smaller population size, plus increased risk of localized natural disasters, equals increased risk of extinction.
If you're OK with human extinction, then there's not really much more to say.
As to why it's a bad argument, it's poorly thought out, and doesn't hold up under scrutiny.