That's quite breathtaking. "Reducing human population" is a phrase that can only have so many meanings: controlling reproduction, removing access to healthcare, or killing people. There are no other options I'm aware of.

You can go to just about any physics site and see lists of things physicists still don't understand. Some of them are so far out in the woods that they're even debating the role of empiricism and the scientific method. (If the math looks good, and we could never perform an experiment, isn't that good enough?)

Yet here we have an expert in the social sciences suggesting we do something about having too many humans.

Hillman has had a fine career. I wish him the best in his continued efforts. Articles like this exist to praise people of note, also to poke at folks like me who might find some of their statement a bit over-the-top. Better to generate controversy and readership.

But we really need a more serious discussion on climate. Not pandering to the end-of-world folks, not pandering to the "nothing to see here, folks". Something substantive. There's a lot of religious and magical thinking in climate science, many times by people who would consider themselves uber rationalists. (They're the worst). The vast majority of the public has had about enough of the extremists and self-promoters. There may be an opportunity to start a reasoned discussion.