Population and Technology

[RWStanding]

Population
Population is not in itself an ethical value. But the way it is treated is.
There can be a lot of hot air expended in simply debating and haranguing about what is ‘right’ on some undefined ethereal basis, or no basis at all that is mentioned. Although.in fact, people will have their unspoken rule or measuring stick.
There are no doubt an infinite number of combinations of ways in which population levels in communities, nations and worldwide, may be managed. Something that is recognised and left to cloud the issue. As with a forest of trees there is a multitude, but many fewer species, and families. With ethics, it is the direction of travel that needs to be considered at the outset. If present population increase and environmental degradation continues, only emergency measures will become options.
The authoritarian state or society [as against having some authority in knowledge] would have its own corporate identity and stability as the priority. It would be consonant for such social system to take draconian measures, in birth control, and removal of unwanted peoples. Even ancient Greece had infanticide as normal.
What today could be seen as a global society of individuals, with no concept of society other than as a sum of individuals exerting their own wills and freedom, would have minimal control of population. Every person with the right to his own property, and largely a right to go anywhere at his own risk. This would be the present-day movements of endangered and excess populations, taken to an extreme. The consequences may be imagined.
What, for my own conceit, I name the altruist form of society. That is not simply free, although tolerant. Would necessarily have its population policy and control. In western Europe today, merely allowing married people to limit their family size, would probably answer the problem, as it should have done long ago. But we do not live, as yet, in a global association of altruist nations. Therefore, any would-be altruist nation, would be obliged to close its borders. Not by any account responding to insatiable and commercial demand for labour. And it would be expected and demanded that other nations, states, societies, control their own populations. The obvious risk is the way the world is today, that imposing that duty will cause a moral catastrophe.
We forget that in the not so distant past, Nature had moral command, with famine and disease doing its work. In places that were entirely out of contact with each other. UNFORTUNATELY we are employing technology today, less to improve life than to excuse us from doing those things that we should have done, to obviate the need for bizarre technology. Commerce will find it an opportunity to promote an ever increasing population. We had this before with the coming of agriculture ten thousand years ago, and industry a couple of hundred years ago.

[commonsense]

By "bizarre technology" do you mean technology in general or are you thinking of some particular type of technology?