I suppose so, if you look at the exacerbation of economic inequality, starvation (+15 million worldwide), and deaths of despair caused by the lockdowns and associated interventions. Seemingly no one minds that.

Most discussions around depopulation get bogged down in emotional or ethical arguments. To clarify, ethical considerations aren't distractions; they drive the pragmatic actions of all parties involved. It's even feasible to consider the most ethical—perhaps fully democratic—means of implementing such plans. However, it's worth noting there's a historical tolerance limit beyond which future generations may not be kind to the architects of such initiatives.

The real crux isn't whether some advocate for lower populations—clearly, many do—but the operational aspect: who executes, under what authority, and how? For instance, if a group of biologists and engineers aim to reduce Earth's population to 4 billion by 2400, the implications—like fewer children and potential space colonization—are vastly different than a group of anthropological philosophers striving for the same population count by 2033, which could necessitate more drastic measures.

These logistical issues, whether it's stealth tactics versus open methods or the necessity of opportunistic partnerships, remain conspicuously underexplored.

Sweden never locked down and has one of the lowest covid death rates overall now.