Re: Just where do ...
I get the impression that you feel your species is essentially lacking and ought be curtailed.
No...I think that we're a superpredator that has largely overwhelmed the ecological niche it evolved to fill. We've compensated with technology for a while, but now we're at the point where that technology is making us largely redundant. That's opening us up for a self-imposed Matthusean catastrophe wherein socially and culturally we have no room for the "extra" people who are no longer needed to provide cheap labour for the rich and powerful.
I am not arguing ethics about this. I am arguing pragmatism. Those in power aren't going to suddenly find a use for the milled masses. They aren't going to invest in training those milled masses, and the cost of training is such that you need to be gainfully employed just to obtain it today anyways.
The skills floor is skyrocketing and the number of skilled workers required dropping. Meanwhile, we just can't stop having fucking babies. We're overpopulating. Not because of what we theoretically could sustain, but because of what we pragmatically and realistically will choose to sustain, based on 10,000 years of recorded human history.
Maybe we are guilty of a crime? Do we have Original Sin upon our heads?
No...that's absurd. That's for religious fuzzy wuzzies or really extreme eco-freaks. That said, we are functionally immune to anything excepting gross evolutionary pressures. if you're born with a handful of really awful conditions you're probably not going to reproduce. Anyone else, however, can. You don't even need to find a long-term mate these days. It can be done as a straight up financial transaction, if you choose.
The end result is that a bunch of fairly bad genes are being passed on. Me, for example. I have a bit of genetic fuckery that means I cannot feel thirst. Instead, I feel an overwhelming (and sometimes unstoppable) craving for carbohydrates. Carbs tend to make me dehydrated, which causes a nasty cycle.
I can, for example, be in the middle of making pasta, telling myself (out loud or in my head) over and over "I shouldn't make pasta, I don't need pasta, I'm fat enough, thanks, I need water, water will solve this" and be entirely unable to use my conscious mind to override my body's actions.
I am also somnambulent. Video exists of me, dead asleep, getting up and just eating bread. Because my body can't tell it needs water.
That's not okay. That's a really bad bit of genetics. There are some others, but you know what, I'm doing humanity a favour by not passing that shit on.
Now, I know, some genetics that appear to be negative can convey benefits. For example, immunity to a plague we haven't encountered yet. That said, our technology is marching on such that the dubious potential genetic benefits of some generally pretty awful genetic traits are less and less relevant.
While I don't look at the "ethics" of how we are inevitably going to treat our "surplus" poor and undereducated, I do think that there is some ethics to examining the genetic inheritance that we might personally pass on to the next generation.
"The people" have fuck all power in the real world to affect how the rich and powerful treat the "surplus" population. Whatever your ethical views (and frankly, I'm not Randian at all in my own personal ethics,) moralizing about how we will treat those people is pointless. They will suffer by the billions, at best eeking out marginal lives living on handouts.
Yes, I know, the optimistic (and, IMNSHO, crazy) believe in the fairy tale that robots and technological advancements will be a "tide that lifts all boats". I do not. There isn't a lot of evidence for that. As our ability to produce increases so does the concentration of wealth.
We don't look set to actually do anything about inequality beyond providing the means for the poorest to eek out those marginal, hand-out lives, and we are decreasing the opportunity for individual self advancement in our societies.
So regardless of one's ethical or moral beliefs I think the pragmatic approach to dealing with human nature is to stop and ultimately reverse the total human population growth. I am not advocating the extinction of humanity, but its reduction over time to levels that allow human nature to allow everyone to leave reasonably comfortably. This has nothing to do with what's possible. it has everything to do with what is.
From an ethical standpoint I think an additional reason to reduce our population is simply that some of what we are - our genetics - needs to end. Normally evolution would take care of this for us, but we've largely cut that out of the equation. If humanity is going to use artificial means to bypass evolution we need to use artificial means to make rational choices about genetic propagation.
That isn't a call for eugenics. It's a call for personal responsibility regarding genetic propagation. We have the technology to choose whether or not we reproduce. Ethically, morally, I feel that means we have a duty to educate ourselves about the consequences of reproduction and make rational choices about whether or not we should reproduce.
Just because our ancestors uses baby spam to overwhelm the planet doesn't mean we should. Humans need to be managed sustainably. Just like any other animal species on the planet.
We just happen to be the only species capable of doing that management consciously. There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with doing so. In fact, in my opinion, doing so is our duty as sentient beings.