>Your view is simplistic and still completely incorrect that we are headed towards extinction.

Until any country anywhere successfully manages to stabilize or reverse a below replacement birthrate we are, within the next 100 years, on our way to a declining global population. And once the pop starts declining, we obviously can't reverse that with below replacement birthrates.

That observation contains within it the possibility of a change in outcome. But personally, I'd like to see evidence that the change is actually possible before we happily tip ourselves into decline.

>So the earth is getting pretty fucked up due to climate change, food is going to be scarce in 2050, and lumber will be as well because the demand for housing, sustainable energy, and manufacturing will only increase source

Links to an article about timber that says the main reason for increased demand is increased urbanization, not increasing population.

>population decline also has other advantages taken from the example of China article.

Links to an article that just says literally the same things they've already said, because it also doesn't acknowledge that "happier" , "better off" people doesn't count for much if the long term cost is NO people... On top of ignoring that once economies start shrinking due to population loss people won't be "happier" or "better off".