Odograph wrote:

Or would a "non-crash" be a course in which we tried to minimize suffering, and maintain the institutions of civilization?

Odograph, if trying means a non-crash then you can be sure we will have a non-crash. Everyone, including myself, will be trying like hell to keep food on the table and clean water in the well. But I haven't a clue as to how you will maintain the institutions of civilization when fossil fuels start to dry up. But of course I cannot elaborate because I don't know which institution you are talking about.

BTW, it isn't really fair to suggest that everyone who favors action also favors unlimited population growth.

Of course not, I would not dream of suggesting that is the case. It's just that saving civilization as we know it means saving the status quo. A lot of people advocate population control, including myself. But of course that means draconian measures. Only a totalitarian world government can truly control population. The people, left to themselves simply will not do it.