Sure, if you listen to US &/or UK RW conservate ecologists following Malthus & Galton, but humanity has managed till now, and now across the world we have fast declining fertility rates, so what's the problem?

You have presented what one finds problematic, as do many genuine environmental types & libertarians, using unspecified 'population growth' &/or 'immigration' to demand authoritarian policies for 'law and order', but masked by supposed libertarian 'freedom & liberty'?

Both a contradiction and a form of 'corrupt nativist authoritarianism' e.g. fueled by old fossil oligarchs with antipathy towards science, progress and the 21stC

Dear Andras,

I'm not clear whether your last post is in response to my post or otherwise.

In case it is:

«if you listen to US &/or UK RW conservate ecologists following Malthus & Galton»

No, I present my own thoughts.

«but humanity has managed till now»

Materially it has, and may possibly continue to manage like that for millennia ahead. My concern is of the social regimentation required to keep it going.

«and now across the world we have fast declining fertility rates, so what's the problem?»

That human population numbers have been exceedingly too high for many centuries. Fertility rates are indeed declining because the demands of civilisations on parents trying to raise children in cities are draconic, but they do not decline fast enough to bring human population numbers back to reasonable levels, that's around 100-200 million people.

«using unspecified 'population growth' &/or 'immigration' to demand authoritarian policies for 'law and order', but masked by supposed libertarian 'freedom&liberty'?»

The last thing I would advise is to have more 'law and order' and authoritarian policies, as this is the problem to begin with.
Also, I didn't mention 'immigration', and since you did, I support the free movement of people.

Isn't it obvious that freedom/liberty is not possible when population numbers are so big, that there is simply no space for it where everywhere we go we have to step on the interests of others?

«Both a contradiction and a form of 'corrupt nativist authoritarianism' e.g. fueled by old fossil oligarchs with antipathy towards science, progress and the 21stC»

Where is the contradiction?
I do not support authoritarianism of any kind.
I am not aware of any oligarchs.
I do not oppose science as such, but the social price of the technology that comes with it is too high.
Sure, ever increasing technology is a must in order to sustain high population levels, I'm not that naive to think that billions could continue to survive without it, but technology no longer serves the individual, it only serves regimes to control and mitigate the material and environmental effects of overpopulation.