Homo Sapiens population reduction and control is the only way we can ever save ourselves and the other species we share this planet with.
As many have stated there is no planet B.
Homo Sapiens is the only species actively engaged in destroying its own Environment for its own selfish greed.

There are natural laws on this planet, if some countries, think they can overpopulate their environment, nature will cull those populations, through poverty, wars over control of lands and territorial resources, droughts through deforestration . Lack of disease free water, as in India where
the poor which are in the millions use the rivers and waterways for bathing, washing,and everything else.
The millions we are seeing now in refugee camps are the result of poverty, war and famine and no rain. All the consequences of outbreeding your resources.
Humans seem to think they can step outside the natural laws but this is only to certain limits

«There is no doubt that the human race has improved in its understanding of science and technology»

MATERIAL science and MATERIAL technology, only.

«Are we more ethical than in past generations? Do we care as much about our fellow man? Do we care as much about the future of the human race?»

It's hard to tell, but what has the third question to do with the first two? Caring for the already-living is important, but the continued existence of the human race by pushing ever increasing number of souls into new human bodies, is not an ethical imperative nor a caring thing to do.

«Life is now so much easier in the rich world, that it should be easier to be ethical.»

No, life isn't easier, it's actually more complex. Remaining ethical despite industrial pressures, knowing right from wrong and withstanding the modern temptations is in fact more difficult.

«We don't have the pressures on us to survive like 100 or 200 years ago, when medicine and technology hadn't developed to make our lives so secure.»

Biological survival is not the epitome of life. Medicine can only help us survive medical conditions, but offers no help against the increased pressures which make living less worthwhile. As for the technology that is supposed to give us more free time, we actually are more stressed due to it and have less time as we find ourselves spending most of our time serving the technology which was supposed to serve us (including the labour we need to invest in order to purchase, then constantly replace and protect that technology). Technology is only a stopgap to survive the increased population. The overall time we have left to actually live, though spanning more years on average, has not increased.

«First nobody was allowed to vote. Monarchs ruled»

No, this came only later once population grew and cities formed. Beforehand, when everyone had sufficient space to live on, no rule was needed.

Yuyutsu
Sorry you are having such a tough life. It's hard to believe that your life is tougher than the average person 100 - 200 years ago when life expectancy was 30-40 years compared to 80 now. I'm not like you I am having a much easier life than my father, grandfather and great-grandfather had and I am very grateful for that.
I'd be surprised if there were many people who would want to change places and live 100 - 200 years ago, instead of now.

Dear Eric,

Most people would not swap the difficulties which they already got used to with unaccustomed difficulties, even if lesser.

It is tough to live a principled life. I suppose that for those who don't care, take it easy and go with the flow without questioning, life is not that tough.

The span of life ought to be measured in moments, rather than in years - how many times have you actually been aware, rather than how many times the earth revolved around the sun.

Thanks Yuyutsu

Sorry. I don't know you well enough to respond to this comment.