Yes, US-Mexican war was terrible.

The era of mass armies ended decades ago. Military power is now more a function of GDP than population size.

For South Korea, the only significant neighboring countries they might need to worry about are North Korea, China, and Japan. All of those have similar demographic problems.

Sure they will[1]. Their declining birth rate just lags SK's by a few decades. Birth rate is generally inversely proportional to development and educational attainment in a country. As "global south" countries catch up on these metrics their birth rates will likely decrease.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/birth-rate

I've got no pity for the retirees who caused a lot of the environmental crisis in the first place.

The growth of the global population is slowing[1]. Undeveloped nations are developing, and as they do their birth rate drops as well.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/birth-rate

I think it's still perfectly defensible, so long as you're equitable to all, and "other" isn't code for being a racist. Everyone should have access to birth control, family planning and advanced life opportunities. Everyone should have the opportunity to live a sustainable fulfilling life. That's often not possible if you're born into poverty, born to parents who didn't want you, or socially/culturally pressured into having children young.

The solution is better education, better contraceptive access & more sustainable economies that don't rely on endless growth that grinds human lives away for a pittance.

> This statement, being more accurate is much less defensible.

Why is that less defensible? Any other stance will see the end of your people and culture. And if that's desirable, why are you practicing a culture you wish to see end?

Or we could all come together, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

You twist what was said and then you say it is not defensible. Not cool.

There are two ways one can understand what you said and both are terrible takes.

You might imagine that everyone is somehow secretly racist/nationalistic/egoistic and somehow when they say we need fewer people they secretly mean that fewer of other “kind of” people. This is not true. When I say we need fewer people I include “my people” in that too, for whatever arbitrary grouping you would deem “my” people.

The other possible take is that you think everyone who thinks there should be fever people should commit suicide, or if they don’t they clearly mean “fewer other people”. This is also silly. In this context nobody proposes that we should get fewer people by killing anyone. People die. If you just stop making so many of them we will end up with less of them.

I had one kid, I'm purposefully shrinking the human population, I walk the walk.

Seems to me that glibly throwing labels at people like that - Malthusian, antihumanist to the core - really doesn't "encourage problem solving and collaboration".