We are actually more or less in agreement here. You are correct in observing how the breakneck pace of our advancement over the course of the last few decades has resulted in a world that tends to shift too quickly for human sensibilities to keep up. You are also correct in pointing out that many of the (largely directionless) socio-cultural changes that this state of affairs has been responsible for bringing about have tended to be far from positive on the whole. I have argued much the same in many other threads on this board.
I was simply responding to what (I perceived to be, anyway) the assertion in your earlier post that a smaller population was necessarily a desirable answer to these current problems. Generally speaking, I am wary of such claims, as they tend to be the almost exclusive domain of ultra-Left Wing busybodies with delusions of "utopia" frittering round their overly-idealistic heads. The idea that any society can, or even should, be held in "equilibrium" through the artificial management of populations is questionable at best, and outright dangerous at worst.
The proposition is based around principles which have never been shown to be workable in reality. Indeed, contrary to what many of those who favor Malthusian "stability" might like to claim, most human progress throughout our history has been brought about as a result of population growth fueling innovation, not population decline. It also displays a certain inherent aversion to risk and luddite fear of material progress which I find to be intellectually lazy, counter-productive, and fundamentally unimaginative.
It is a truism to say that nothing worth doing in this world comes easy or free of cost, and growth is no different. If the Malthusians had gotten their way, it is likely that there never would've even been an Industrial Revolution, let alone the wonders we see in today's world. They simply wouldn't have been able to see past the temporary hardship growth tends to cause to the rewards which almost always seem to follow in its wake.
The simple fact of the matter is that history has shown time and again that, where there is not growth, there tends to be stagnation. Where there is stagnation, there inevitably tends to be decay. The Imperial Chinese, whose Confucian worldview actually held a lot in common with that of modern population minimalists, IMO, demonstrated this principle perfectly. They felt that their society could be maintained at "equilibrium" indefinitely if only there was a place for everything and everyone worked towards that common goal. The rather cataclysmic cultural dead-end they eventually ran into at the hands of Western Imperialists whose cultures existed in anything but "equilibrium" proves just how mistaken their ideas ultimately turned out to be.
In any case, I do think you are correct in saying that much of the global population is probably going to experience upheaval and even decline in coming centuries in as a result of the structural and social-cultural strain that is becoming ever more readily apparent in modern society as a result of the dizzying pace of our development. I simply hope that progress is not overly set back as global society inevitably readjusts itself.
I would very much like to see the reach of human ambition expanded upon in the same manner it has been since the onset of the modern era, rather than regress back into the petty societal introversion which so marred most of the rest of our history.
