I believe this is called the voluntary extinction movement, where there is a group that believes humanity should move toward extinction by cessation of reproduction. Generally the reasoning is that humans have caused great environmental damage and there is a moral imperative to put ourselves down, the most humane way being to stop reproducing. There's some amount of validity to that line of reasoning but, your statement is inane and shows no depth of consideration.

Honestly, I agree there should be more thought put into the care of children. Perhaps it is my perspective as a queer person who is much less likely to accidentally have children, but I have seen many cases where parents have just not been good parents. This isn't even to touch on the many children in the foster system or who otherwise lack formal permanent care. I don't believe that it's appropriate for the only qualification for parents to be the ability to have sex and produce biogenetic children. I've heard suggestion of mandatory parenting classes, tax penalizations or benefits for children or taking classes after having children, up to parenting licenses. This obviously presents ethical problems depending on how far one is willing to go and reproductive rights are not easily regulated in a practical or moral manner. I don't intend to be a parent, I don't think I would be good at it and other factors in my life make children less desirable for me. However, there are people who desperately do want to be parents and there are many who are and would be wonderful caretakers.

I don't really know the answers but, the root of my dilemma is not throwing anger into the void over culture or the perceived harm of the government, it is actual concern for the quality of parenting. It is a desire to see future citizens be good and informed people and ensure an education and responsible populace capable of bringing that about. The argument which OP has presented is not an argument at all, nor does it appear to be informed, and this trend of random sweeping statements based on nothing productive will neither change opinion or facilitate debate in good conscious. It is my opinion that it is bad form to present a rant post as a debate subject.

Let's address your "points" here. The world is populated enough: While this is, strictly speaking, an opinion the earth can support a far greater population with estimates of carrying capacity sitting around 10 billion, though past research has suggested as high as 13 billion provided the proper infrastructure and allocation of resources. Global population is rising, but only in select regions, principally areas of Asia and Africa. In most developed countries, population is sustained, declining, or growing at increasingly slow rates. Famously, Japan's population is plummeting but, similar trends can be seen across Europe and even in the US when examining select years.

Population change is essentially a function of (births - deaths) + (in-migration - out-migration) which accounts for fertility, mortality, and migration. In most developed countries birth rate remains below the replacement level, meaning the number of deaths (generally from the elderly but also accidents, which is why replacement is always a positive integer) is exceeding the amount of births causing population decline. This is then adjusted for immigration, population increases if the net product of these numbers is positive and above the replacement level and decreases if it is not.

So why the disparity between developed and undeveloped countries? It's a factor of relative wealth and technology. In developed countries there's greater access to birth control, more incentives to put off having children until later, economic and social barriers, as well as greater agency and mobility for women. In effect, women who are allowed greater reproductive control and resources have fewer children on average.

Medicine is also much better in developed countries. Those of us in such places generally do not die of the same things people in less developed nations. For example, some principal causes of death in developed nations are cancer and cardiovascular disease- that is to say chronic degenerative disorders. Compare this to less developed countries where the top causes of death are generally infectious diseases. This is also a factor for infant mortality and there is an important gender breakdown, since if for some reason women have higher death rates there's an according change in birth rate. I had a graph here but, I'm going over the character limit with it so, let's just go on without it. We can surmise that birth and death rates both decrease with industrialization because, you know, people have medicine and things are cleaner. There's also a greater nutritional difference between these societies and quite simply people are having children for very different reasons. There's economic incentive toward children in low income countries compared to the cost of a child in a high income country. These points over the past paragraphs are the science behind the demographic transition theory, that population rises, then falls, before stabilizing, in accordance with levels of industrial development.

The issue is not raw population growth but industrialization and exploitation. We can probably feed the entire world with current agricultural technology and it's only expected to improve . The issue is that much of this food goes to waste. Low income countries have had a history of economic and material exploitation which has destabilized and slowed their growth. We have little reason to think their populations will not also eventually decline or stabilize and it may in fact be beneficial to assist them through economic and technological agreements. Sectionalism between nations is perhaps the largest barrier toward good for the entirety of earth and humanity. There's enough stuff in general, people just need to allocate it properly and stop hoarding, on a social and individual level.

OP's next point is that regulation, organization, and regulation is harmful, which is ridiculous. Surly, an overabundance of government control could limit liberty. However, the entire point of law is to limit freedom for the common good. We could discuss why social security is good , or how robust social programs make people and society better , but I'm a bit distracted over how names are harmful here. Obviously, the impact of the media is important and often can be harmful, so let's just remove all forms of culture since they condition behavior. To proclaim society as the source of all ills is simplistic. Humans require society, we are social beings, civilization is our greatest achievement and has facilitated advancement in all axis of human creation. Of course society is the source of social problems, it's the source of large scale social-ness.

I think I've made my point clear on everything else OP has said. I believe these ill founded statements fueled by misplaced aggression are a prime source of continual social unrest. It's sweeping and pointing the figure in the wrong way. It makes things worse to be angry without anything to back it up, to shout into the void some misanthropic quip does nothing for good faith discussion.