Just to play devil's advocate, what if overpopulation is what dooms mankind? In hindsight, the best way to spend money isn't necessarily on saving lives, but preventing pregnancies.
Coincidentally I thought of that very same thing the moment I clicked "submit"
It's a good devil's advocate question. I thought of it because I've been training myself to play DA with myself more often.
I'm uncertain of the truth that overpopulation is a real problem that comes with the serious consequences we often hear about. Maybe to a certain extent, but not close to the gloom and doom, apocalyptic scenarios.
China's concern with overpopulation caused them to limit the amount of pregnancies. An unintended consequence is now a serious concern with an aging populace and a future shortage of man power to care for the elderly while maintaining an enormous economic engine.
I'm not convinced there's not enough resources to go around. Considering the enormous wealth/poverty discrepancies we often hear about, an argument can be made that it's a hoarding and not a shortage of resources (present or future) that's really the issue here.
Not possible to invest in saving lives while resources and wealth continue to be hoarded?
Where's the empathy here?
Of course its harder to be empathetic when one million people are a few thousand miles away from you and aren't starving in front of your face.
When it's closer to home, empathy becomes easier to practice.