Not another morality post!!

[Yonadav]

Expediency is a functional morality, and its based entirely on our evolved social behavior.

Right, murder is wrong because a species cannot survive if more are killed than can reproduce. So the species that see this as wrong are the ones that were able to continue their population.

We evolved language to communicate information with one another, and as such, lying renders language useless. So the groups that saw lying as wrong were the ones that benefited the most from language, prospered, and reproduced.

Now, over-population (has nothing to do with space, and everything to do with resources such as food, medicine, and water) is wrong because it will put a larger demand on necessities when supply may not be able to keep up. Wildlife conservationists know this, that's why they introduced wolves into Yellowstone National Park, to hunt the deer in order to keep their population limited so that they don't eat all of the forest.

Species that keep their populations relatively low tend to be the ones that survive the best, because they don't consume their resources faster than they can be replenished. Thus, their species gets to go on for another generation.

We're about half way there to experiencing a world-wide over-population problem. Those in first world countries get to just lazily and apathetically take all these comforts for granted. However, travel abroad and you'll see the effects of over-population. It's why so many in Africa have so little. 1st world countries will soon face that, too. Not only from over-taxing the resources, but also from the droughts brought on by climate change due to so many people needing so many things that pollute. (Climate deniers will be ignored, we have the peer-reviewed science papers on our side, you have idiot bloogers and political hacks on yours.)

Now, we don't have to cull anyone, obviously. There's methods that we can use to deal with this. China has a 1 child policy, and some countries in the middle east educate their women on the importance of contraception and how expensive having children can be. So they have no problem with families not having any more children than they can afford.

To prevent humans from going extinct, and thus to do the moral and expedient thing, we must educate people with proper sex ed. The importance of contraception, the giving away contraception to anyone that wants it, and yes, allowing women to have free access to abortions, or to getting their tubes tied, and free access for men to have a vasectomy.

It would be immoral not to do these things.

Your reasoning is a little wonky on some things. It is those of us in the comfortable first world nations who are causing the most resource depletion and global warming. Resource depletion and global warming is more of a product of wealth than overpopulation. About ten percent of us do about ninety percent of depletion and global warming. Eradicate half the population of the world, and you'll make just about no difference.

Also, the drive to have more than two or three children goes away after a generation or two in which women don't die in childbirth and babies live to adulthood. We used to need every woman who was capable of surviving it to have many children just to get and average of two babies per couple to survive to adulthood. That was necessary to maintain a stable population, with very little growth. Here's a TED lecture about the drive to have more than two or three children going away the survival of babies to adulthood becomes common:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI

Next, you are going to have one hell of a reproductive rights fight on your hands when you start telling women that they are morally required to get abortions and have their tubes tied, and telling men that they have to get vasectomies. In principle, I personally don't have a problem with it, because I don't think that there is really any such thing as reproductive rights. But you are likely to get women just as angry at you for telling them that they are morally obligated to get abortions as you would be if you told them that they are morally obligated to not get abortions. Women tend to believe very strongly that they have reproductive rights.

China ended its one child policy. It now has a two child policy. And human rights organizations are still highly critical of China over reproductive rights. Somewhat amusingly, pro choice feminists were outraged when they heard that the Chinese were aborting female fetuses so that the one child that they could have would be a son. If you want to radically reduce population, then having very few daughters is the way to go. That's not why the Chinese were discriminating in favor of sons, but a more drastic population reduction is nonetheless the outcome of that.  Here is an article written by an environmental journalist, talking about why he never discusses overpopulation.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environme...n-question