I would say one of the reason for globalism to retreat is the west (especially US) find itself in a awkward situation: developing world and developed world has to meet somewhere in the middle, which means, the living standard in developed world has to drop.

For developing world to develop, you will have to go the extra miles, you are competing with big guys, trying to make a space for yourself in a crowded room. Every country does currency manipulation, imaging you make your good cheaper to get some papers, only because the paper can be used to buy energy.

> the living standard in developed world has to drop.

That depends on how you define "living standards." For example, the USA can probably afford to lose a LOT of consumer products spending while still raising HDI metrics by simply reallocating how resources are committed. We prioritize spending in a lot of places that don't really return much in the way of physical or spiritual well-being. Think car-dependent infrastructure which mostly just serves to raise need for spending on vehicles and infrastructure. Think fast fashion which mostly serves to accelerate trend cycles so people buy clothes more often than they did otherwise. There's a lot of consumer needs that are socially-pressured here.

What you are saying is absolutely true. The problem is that not everyone is going to think this way. Not having something is easy, but not having something after you had it is hard. The only way to keep the living standard high is actually technology, especially robotics. I am both pessimistic and optimistic on this. I can see a bright future for mankind slaving robotics, but I can also see technology will be guarded as weapons. The same reason in this world we have abundant stuffs and we also have people lacking of basic electricity.

I think a major reason might be that a precondition for globalism has been the US Navy patrolling the high seas and making shipping safe and reliable. As the US retreats from that, the reality will be that many countries cannot guarantee their supply lines. Peter Zeihan talks about this (and many other factors).

The US has been doing this for a long time, but it's gotten to the point where it isn't clear that it is in our interests, e.g., to enable China to be a major trading power.

It makes sense. If the west is worrying about things, it would make sense to build more capacity at home, and then everyone will just follow.

IMO, US's colonization of the world has been through finance, which has been ok for the world. Globalization is a good business for the US, de-globalization will actually accelerate the empires' declining.

Everyone, certainly India, need to stop population growth.

We need to thank China as the developing country that has made massive efforts on that issue over the past 45 years.

India has also hit replacement or below replacement level population in most of the country and it was done without invasively draconian policy setting. Just female literacy and access to healthcare.

India's population is still growing and in pretty bad conditions. In Africa population is still booming.

China would have hundreds of millions more people, with consequences for all of us, if it had not done what it did.

Very little efforts are made globally to control population, which makes things like COP27 rather moot.

Your ideas about population control are antiquated. It is well known that demographic change follows women's rights and economic development, particularly in access to healthcare and education. Draconian laws just lead to wide-scale oppression. India's population (and Africa's) are only growing in the regions that schooling and healthcare infrastructure haven't penetrated yet. The only controls a government can institute under conditions where it can't even run a school are genocidal.

You are not commenting on what I wrote and are using the usual emotional and defeatist rhetoric to oppose any population controls.

Yes, the Chinese approach has been draconian and even cruel. But it has also been effective and the point remains that we should thank them for having succeeded in controlling their population.

I also do think that too little is being done to stop population growth globally because that growth is actually the root cause to most of our environmental issues. Note that between "too little" and your over-the-top claim of "genocide" there a gigantic chasm.

This also applies to Western countries. Many of them have incentives to boost natality. We need to 'free ourselves' from the idea that population growth as a positive and necessary thing because it simply cannot continue and a decrease would even be a net positive for the environment and quality of life.

What part of "The desired outcome already happens in India and Africa through other, more constructive and humanistic methods without any of the ethical downsides" is defeatist? I don't understand the fetish for imposing draconian restrictions on would-be parents in light of those facts.