Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Yes, and? CO2 neutral, offsetting emissions is okay in the climate system. No partial successes. All or nothing. Yes, that is a real danger. Therefore, one must also be prepared for this scenario. Demanding to forgo having children is a sick idea. Not to stop climate change, but to slow it down. Exactly, more realistically won't be possible anyway. But even that doesn't happen by itself.

Statistics and calculations show that we will have a peak of 9.7 billion people around 2070 and then stabilize long-term at 8.8 billion.

What is the reason for the decline supposed to be? Not enough T-bone steaks for everyone? 0.9 billion fewer over what period? Sounds adventurous or like a real pandemic :cool:

Yes, and? CO2 neutral, compensation for emissions is okay in the climate system.
No partial successes. All or nothing. Yes, that is a real danger. Therefore, one must also be prepared for this scenario.
Demanding to forgo children is a sick idea.
Not stopping climate change, but slowing it down. Exactly, more realistically won’t be possible anyway. But even that doesn’t happen by itself.

Forgoing children is not a sick idea, it’s about a discussion on how many children. Our state is so sick that from the 3rd child onwards it even pays more child benefits.

Whether a family must have more than 2 children is up for debate. At least not for free or even subsidized by the state. A penalty tax would be appropriate.

Since it is still not sufficiently clarified how much influence humans actually have on climate change and what a CO2 reduction actually achieves, it would be important to analyze this more precisely. If necessary, CO2 must be stored; the first approaches to this are being tested.

There were also severe climate changes long before there were humans.

Ouch, that hurts. Anthropogenic climate change has been scientifically proven since the late 1980s. Also the influence of CO2.

What is the reason for a decline supposed to be? Not enough T-Bone steaks for everyone? 0.9 billion less in which period? Sounds adventurous or like a real pandemic :cool:

The reason is the steady decline in the birth rate, from 4.6 (1950) to 1.7 (projected for 2100). At birth rates below 2.1, the human population starts to shrink in the long term. This is logically explainable: If you assume that roughly the same number of boys and girls are born and not everyone survives to their own reproduction, then with a birth rate of 2.1 you have about one expected girl as a descendant.

Ouch, that hurts. Anthropogenic climate change has been scientifically proven since the late 1980s. The influence of CO2 as well.

For pain, see a doctor. For problems with -precise- reading, see an optician :) Otherwise, please provide sources and no babble. I am not aware of any study that can quantify the exact influence of humans.

Amazing how quickly and often scientifically proven facts are simply ignored as if they were just any [Stammtisch opinion]. As a non-scientist, I have the utmost respect for this and am rather pleased that we have such smart people among us. In addition, I perceive scientists to be more self-critical and open to results than is the case in most other fields.