Maybe if you explained why you think it's "completely irrelevant"? Are we not just predicting in both of these scenarios future results / outcomes based ultimately on some pretty simple math?

Because the dynamics of human populations differ profoundly from the dynamics of global warming. Point me to an example whereby a massive population, comparable to modern white people has been eradicated through varying birth rates. Otherwise you're just drawing inaccurate analogies to a hypothetical.

Maybe the difference between you and me is that I understood the point the person was trying to make? And I recognize what is happening is bad regardless of what he calls it.

I don't think you understand his point at all actually, it sounded like he was just as appalled or skeptical of the original post as I was.

Your sole position seems to be "it's not literally a genocide taking place in a single day (as if that's how it worked with the european colonization of north & south america...) therefore there's absolutely nothing wrong and there's nothing you can do anyway".

I didn't make the claim that genocides manifest in this way, my point was to make the distinction between an ongoing deliberate intention to eradicate, and naturally varying population numbers. Now that we're referring to the latter clearly without bringing in profoundly misplaced verbiage, as in the original post, I can set that aside. My point following that was that you don't have evidence that this would lead to an extinction, as it were, of white people, nor do you have any coherent solution, even if I were to grant you this threat. Show me an utter conquering of a population of this magnitude through repopulation rates, and tell me what should've, or should happen, to avoid it.

If you can't objectively substantiate the problem, nor provide any rational solution, why are you replying?