See, most people view "shortage of space" and "global warming" and "lack of resources" as bad because it leads to people's quality of life decreasing, and people even potentially losing their lives.

You, on the other hand, seem to be seeing 99% of humanity suffering and/or losing their lifes as good because it would cause less shortage of space, and less global warming.

Given such reasoning I don't know why you see global warming as bad in the first place. Global warming won't manage to kill nearly as much as 99% of humanity, after all: and yet you seem to think it a worse problem than a thermonuclear war that will.

Are you just trolling? Or are you so confused that you mix up your terminal goals with your instrumental goals on such an extent that is hardly ever seen?