The Guardian: America's premier pronatalists on having 'tons of kids' to save the world: 'There are going to be count...

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. My point was...

If you want to cut emissions meaningfully by reducing populations, simple means like cutting birthrates won’t work fast enough. We cannot afford to wait generations for it to “kick in.”

As pointed out in the O.P. numerous countries already have Total Fertility Rates “below replacement.” (i.e. less than 2.)

Culling is (if you will) “A Modest Proposal. Or, perhaps a reductio ad absurdum.
.

If we could go back in time and avert the “Post-War Baby Boom” that would be helpful, but (I’m afraid) not sufficient. The “war machines” of World War II burned a heck of a lot of fossil fuel. (i..e. not just the tanks, and jeeps and airplanes, but the factories which made them and the munitions and so forth.)

Even before the 20th century, we were well on the road to ruin.