Because the best thing you can do for the world is to raise children well. If they raise theirs, etc. its a cycle of good over thousands of years, that will have more positive impact than anything you could do in your life as an individual.
Is to not have any children so the population gets back down to sustainable levels
Who will do the work required to care for the elderly population?
And if not healthcare is another 15%. But you probably can shave off a little from all those numbers if you exclude the time devoted to desperately trying to sell things to each other in the economy of abundance.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
When some people stop procreating and educating the next generation, the world population does not simply go down. Instead it gets replaced by those who do continue multiplying.
You want people who will care diligently for their children to have them. Not people who will be largely indifferent to them, whether they're smart or dumb.
The Musk 'I'll have ten and scatter them to the wind with bags of money, the odds will take care of the rest' strategy is not really one that works out well in real life.
Kids aren't something you owe the world, and Idiocracy is just a movie.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3064328/mike-judge-on-the-10th-a...
> because if stupid people have more kids, there will be more stupid people.
You are implying that their kids will necessarily be stupid, which is not so- as per the Mike Judge quote, nurturing and environmental factors, which may included adoptive parents but is far from limited to such, may produce alternate outcomes.
> When some people stop procreating and educating the next generation, the world population does not simply go down. Instead it gets replaced by those who do continue multiplying.
Just because there will be other people who procreate says nothing about the rates in which they do so, that does not guarantee world population will not continue to go down regardless.
One of the many reasons I have carefully avoided making any children over the years is that I already had my fill of child-rearing by the time I left home, through looking after my younger siblings. I wonder what your experience with this was.
Your second point is true, of course.
So we have to stop the ones who can't stop themselves, fine.
100 billion aborigines would pollute less than a handful of western oligarchs
Maybe instead of having more children as the OP notes, we can take care of the tens of millions of neglected ones we already have, or try to work towards providing a healthier environment for those who are already here. The idea that we need more, when we're currently screwing up the ones we have, is silly.