Is overpopulation cause for concern?

[Narz]

There are some really disturbing posts in this thread... a specific one is that poster who suggested we try to limit our population to 1 billion people.
Why? We have 7B now, and things are fine...
How do you suggest we get down to 1B? Voluntarily?
It makes no sense really.

Things aren't really fine if you've been paying attention. One billion might be a bit extreme, it depends how people live. If everyone wanted to live as wastefully as Americans the Earth probably could barely even support that long term. Maybe 2-3 billion could work. Really depends how we live. Of course every year we rape the planet the long-term sustainable carrying capacity decreases.

If you don't understand why it's harder to live with 7x as many people perhaps you should increase your household size sevenfold remaining on the same budget, without adding any additional bathrooms, trash cans or food.

You might say, "but we can grow additional food, build addition rooms, bathrooms, etc." but all of that has an environmental impact especially in the wasteful way we do it currently.

Our problems today are not related to overpopulation, they are generally related to human nature...

Human nature is not to blame. Plenty of cultures understood the value of sustainable practices because if they didn't practice them they would die out or have severe societal problems. People migrated, controlled birthrates, etc. But nowadays due to corporatism people are encouraged to be unsustainable, to spend, to waste, to lack self-control & to be swayed by corporate interests rather than what's best for the long-term viability of humanity.

If you look at the long history of humanity you'll see a wide swath of possibilities of what human-nature can be.

in ten years the world's average wealth has increased over ten thousand dollars, that's not that bad...

How about in the last three years?

 

[Alassius]

Human nature is not to blame. Plenty of cultures understood the value of sustainable practices because if they didn't practice them they would die out or have severe societal problems. People migrated, controlled birthrates, etc. But nowadays due to corporatism people are encouraged to be unsustainable, to spend, to waste, to lack self-control & to be swayed by corporate interests rather than what's best for the long-term viability of humanity.

Care to cite what are these "plenty of cultures"?

Poor people in old cultures didn't buy less because they wanted a sustainable future. They bought less because they couldn't afford more. Nobody was talking about sustainability in the modern sense pre-1950. When Thomas Malthus started making his dire predictions, he was actually suggesting to abolish the Poor Law to make poor people unable to afford more babies, because in his view poor people make as many babies as they can before they could not feed them all.

"Corporatism" (presumably meaning consumerism) actually steers people the other way. If you want to consume more, both for yourselves and for your babies, you gotta have less of them. Which is precisely what people are doing in the most consumerist countries, and what they are not doing in the least consumerist ones.

How about in the last three years?

In the last three years the already rich countries took a beating. The emerging economies still grew, just not as fast.

 

[civ_king]

Things aren't really fine if you've been paying attention. One billion might be a bit extreme, it depends how people live. If everyone wanted to live as wastefully as Americans the Earth probably could barely even support that long term. Maybe 2-3 billion could work. Really depends how we live. Of course every year we rape the planet the long-term sustainable carrying capacity decreases.

If you don't understand why it's harder to live with 7x as many people perhaps you should increase your household size sevenfold remaining on the same budget, without adding any additional bathrooms, trash cans or food.

You might say, "but we can grow additional food, build addition rooms, bathrooms, etc." but all of that has an environmental impact especially in the wasteful way we do it currently.


Human nature is not to blame. Plenty of cultures understood the value of sustainable practices because if they didn't practice them they would die out or have severe societal problems. People migrated, controlled birthrates, etc. But nowadays due to corporatism people are encouraged to be unsustainable, to spend, to waste, to lack self-control & to be swayed by corporate interests rather than what's best for the long-term viability of humanity.

If you look at the long history of humanity you'll see a wide swath of possibilities of what human-nature can be.


How about in the last three years?

Not as much considering the massive beating the developed took, but the last date is from 2000-2010 so it counts in most of the recession.

 

[kochman]

Things aren't really fine if you've been paying attention. One billion might be a bit extreme, it depends how people live. If everyone wanted to live as wastefully as Americans the Earth probably could barely even support that long term. Maybe 2-3 billion could work. Really depends how we live. Of course every year we rape the planet the long-term sustainable carrying capacity decreases.

If you don't understand why it's harder to live with 7x as many people perhaps you should increase your household size sevenfold remaining on the same budget, without adding any additional bathrooms, trash cans or food.

You might say, "but we can grow additional food, build addition rooms, bathrooms, etc." but all of that has an environmental impact especially in the wasteful way we do it currently.


Human nature is not to blame. Plenty of cultures understood the value of sustainable practices because if they didn't practice them they would die out or have severe societal problems. People migrated, controlled birthrates, etc. But nowadays due to corporatism people are encouraged to be unsustainable, to spend, to waste, to lack self-control & to be swayed by corporate interests rather than what's best for the long-term viability of humanity.

If you look at the long history of humanity you'll see a wide swath of possibilities of what human-nature can be.

You have offered nothing to this thread but baseless opinions in this response... and bad analogies (expanding my house 7 fold? wow).

Please give me real, relevant examples of how having 7B is too much... what do we not have that is strictly due to overpopulation?
If anything, overpopulation is a factor in the much wider topic of human nature...
All you are saying is that it is that way because you say it is.

Pointing to a 3 year period of less than stellar economic performance is hardly suitable to this conversation. How about the boom right before that?
And, more importantly, how did overpopulation lead to the economic problems.
If anything, underpopulation (somewhat sarcastically), because we could have filled all those empty houses and actually justified their inflated costs due to supply/demand...

As for population control... what cultures have exhibited universal population control? How do you suggest we enforce population control, Narz? If I can support 10 children, should I not have the freedom to spawn them? What about in the countries where they really can't support having 10 children, but do anyhow... how would you say we control that?

Who's enforcing the baby count???

 

[Narz]

Care to cite what are these "plenty of cultures"?

Well, pretty much all human cultures were nomadic by necessity until 8,000 years ago. Regarding the birthrate thing I remember reading that various Native American cultures were careful about controlling their birthrates, I don't remember which ones.

"Corporatism" (presumably meaning consumerism) actually steers people the other way. If you want to consume more, both for yourselves and for your babies, you gotta have less of them. Which is precisely what people are doing in the most consumerist countries, and what they are not doing in the least consumerist ones.

You don't necessarily have to have fewer, you just have to make more money. The US population is still climbing (though I know many European nations are in slight decline) and the US is the most consumeristic nation on Earth. Many rich people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for fertility treatment (rather than adopt some child in peril from a 3rd world country) because a baby is considered another commodity everyone should have a "right" to have.

In the last three years the already rich countries took a beating. The emerging economies still grew, just not as fast.

Global poverty has increased though. I'm sure some the rich most in poor countries have gotten richer though.

You have offered nothing to this thread but baseless opinions in this response... and bad analogies (expanding my house 7 fold? wow).

I've offered plenty if you've paid attention. What have you offered? "Human nature". Invoking human nature is like a sign that says baseless opinion.

Please give me real, relevant examples of how having 7B is too much... what do we not have that is strictly due to overpopulation?

Nothing is strictly due to overpopulation but how about, destruction of the rainforest (for living & creating jobs to graze cattle & grow soy for fast food for Americans), destruction of topsoil (overfarming & chemical farming to keep up with feeding a hungry world), overfishing (to feed people), climate change (people don't want to be poor, most of them would like the chance to drive, buy factory produced goods & otherwise increase their eco-footprint).

Do I really need to include more? I mean it's common sense. The 7 people in your house analogy was an attempt to make things visceral for you but I guess it failed. Perhaps you could visit Bangladesh.

If anything, overpopulation is a factor in the much wider topic of human nature...

There's that human nature comment again. A way of saying nothing without (sadly ) saying nothing.

All you are saying is that it is that way because you say it is.

Pointing to a 3 year period of less than stellar economic performance is hardly suitable to this conversation.

If you think the current economic situation is simply a random recession without any broader context I don't know how to help you. The current economic system based on unlimited growth is unsustainable, there are lessons in the current financial meltdown if you're open to them.

How about the boom right before that?

Bubble.

And, more importantly, how did overpopulation lead to the economic problems.

It didn't exactly. Both overpopulation & the economic bubble of the last 150 years are based off of a vision of permanent exponential growth which is not feasible in the long term. The harder & longer we try to maintain it the harder we will crash.

If anything, underpopulation (somewhat sarcastically), because we could have filled all those empty houses and actually justified their inflated costs due to supply/demand...

That's ridiculous. Housing was genuinely overpriced. There's no justification for someone having to spend 20-30 years worth of paychecks just to get a roof over their head.

As for population control... what cultures have exhibited universal population control?

Like I said to Alassius I don't recall which ones specifically. In tribal settings prolonged breastfeeding & lots of exercise naturally kept women from giving birth to the extremely high numbers seen after the industrial revolution (and still seen in certain countries today). When women have control over their lives & are not subject to domination or religious fundamentalism (usually go hand in hand) they generally have fewer.

Some cultures even practiced infanticide if people selfishly decided to have more than the culture deemed sustainable. Obviously that's not really something we want to do now. We can merely disincentivize children (especially beyond two).

How do you suggest we enforce population control, Narz?

No tax breaks for kids beyond two would go a long way I think. Also make teenagers learn more about babies than carrying an egg around for the day & compare it to how difficult child-rearing is.

If I can support 10 children, should I not have the freedom to spawn them?

No you shouldn't. The whole argument that rich people should be able to do whatever they please regardless of environmental or moral costs is one deeply ingrained in the "American dream" but one I find morally repugnant.

What about in the countries where they really can't support having 10 children, but do anyhow... how would you say we control that?

It's up to the leaders of the country to support that. Generally I would agree with most of the people here, women's rights, access to contraception, etc. We could also not make these nations are trade partners (generally high-birthrate nations are pretty backwards anyway).

Who's enforcing the baby count???

Forget about babies for a minute. Another way to help would be to eliminate the stigma on suicide. This ironically would probably reduce suicides among the young & people who are merely trying to call out for help (but fear anger & judgment from family & friends if they admit to feeling suicidal or perhaps worse, being institutionalized & drugged up) but might increase them among people in chronic pain with nothing to live for, but this is a good thing.

Lot of very old people are basically vegetables but their existence creates jobs (nurses, etc.) and nets their families their Social Security. Now, should we cut off these people's life support or stop caring for them? Well that's a touchy subject which I won't touch. But we could allow people to have a Dr. Kevorkian type visit & kill them if they ever get severe enough dementia. I would certainly sign off on something like that for myself. I don't want to watch TV in a stupor drooling on myself for my last ten years, I'd rather be dead.

Lot of options & things to talk about but unfortunately almost all of them are taboo and will provoke intensely negative reactions amongst the thoughtless masses.

 

[Alassius]

Well, pretty much all human cultures were nomadic by necessity until 8,000 years ago. Regarding the birthrate thing I remember reading that various Native American cultures were careful about controlling their birthrates, I don't remember which ones.

You don't necessarily have to have fewer, you just have to make more money. The US population is still climbing (though I know many European nations are in slight decline) and the US is the most consumeristic nation on Earth. Many rich people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for fertility treatment (rather than adopt some child in peril from a 3rd world country) because a baby is considered another commodity everyone should have a "right" to have.

Being nomadic doesn't mean they chose to be nomadic to have a sustainable future. They simply didn't know how to grow crops. If some tribes were really controlling birthrates, it's probably because they couldn't find enough food, rather than because they foresaw us running out of dead trees.

America has a growing population because of immigration from poorer countries, not because the richer locals are having more babies. I've no idea what the rich people line is supposed to mean.

 

[Narz]

To add to my earlier response to kochman. It's fine in theory for someone to be able to have 10 kids & live in a McMansion with 100 acres of green lawn in Phoenix Arizona but we live in a real world where our actions have social, economic & ecological consequences. If we don't reassess our mental conceptions of what our rights & responsibilities are (and maybe decide to sacrifice some of our freedums for the greater good) the future of economic, social & ecological chaos will be such that who knows what will happen to basic human rights.

It's funny, it's essential the concept of making sacrifices now so we won't have to make greater ones in the future. You'd think conservatives would be able to appreciate this but alas, it is not the case.

I've no idea what the rich people line is supposed to mean.

? You mean about women thinking they have "right" to a baby at any cost? Personally I find 47 year old women spending a small fortune trying to conceive gross & selfish when there are so many babies going hungry.

 

[wolfigor]

As for population control... what cultures have exhibited universal population control?

There are very scarce examples mostly because global overpopulation is a modern event.
In the past we had a lot of examples of local overpopulation that were "solved" either by mass emigration, or (imperial or colony) expansion, or starvation, or society collapse.
A classic example is ancient Greece where city states routinely sent people oversea to relieve local population pressure.
At the time the planet was pretty empty (compared to today) and there was plenty of space to move too.
Similar issue for Europe when we started emigrating in mass to the new world.

We also have plenty of example of societies of the past that, after growing at the limit of what their environment could sustain, were not able to alleviate population pressure and collapsed into mass starvation or civil war.

Typical example is Easter Island, where all resources were consumed, all trees cut, and people ended killing each-other in mass until population dropped drastically.

However there are a few examples of societies that did reach the limit and instituted strict laws to limit population and to limit over-exploitation of natural resources.
The most remarkable example is Tokugawa-era forest management in Japan and connected laws for population control, fishing, and farming.
In this case Japan was overpopulated and they were reached the limit of their resources (i.e. almost completely deforested).
Even today Japan is arguably the most forested of the industrial countries (67% of land area).

Today we are reaching a point were resources will get scarce and we are consuming more than what our environment can support.
It's unlikely that anybody will ever voluntarily scale back on the quality of their life to consume less resources.
At the same time a larger part of today population will consume much more than what they do today.

We have experience from the past and capacity to see the long term consequences of our decisions, it's not smart to dig our head in the sand and pretend that everything will be fine by itself.

 

[strijder20]

I did choose the last option.
I think there is a natural brake option. When there are too many people on Earth, more people will die because of starvation or diseases, decreasing the global population level.
Of course, the more people there are, the lower the average wealth a person. So we should start to develop the undeveloped countries, as development is the easiest way to decrease a nation's birth rate.

 

[Camikaze]

What resourcess that could have lasted for centuries are exhausted today?

In some places, soil, timber and fish, as examples. Those places are increasing.

They are not mutually exclusive if you think 9 billion is already too big a number, which is perfectly fine. However, population getting smaller is not compatible with the idea that we have unlimited, exponential growth. If you believe we do have enough resources to support 9 billion people (by, say, finding a magical cheap energy, or by changing Americans' driving habits), then the population growth is already sustainable. We don't have to do anything more than getting the Africans richer.

I think it's possible for a more towards renewable energy economies to allow for more sustainable population growth, but then we're not there yet, which is why we have a problem. If think we will in the future have enough resources to support 9 billion people, but we don't now, and change is needed for this future to eventuate. It's no good sitting back and waiting for enough resources to suddenly materialise, and this is why action is needed on the issue. If that action takes place, then there's no need for forecasts of doom and gloom, but that's a prospective policy direction, not a current reality.

 

[Narz]

One thing I probably mentioned at some point but should probably reiterate.

We don't have to do anything more than getting the Africans richer.

This is faulty thinking. While better developed/educated countries due tend to produce fewer children, smaller richer families are going to still have a much higher eco-footprint than their poorer but larger counterparts. Unless all the rich people want to live like this which is not going to happen.

 

[kochman]

There are very scarce examples mostly because global overpopulation is a modern event.
In the past we had a lot of examples of local overpopulation that were "solved" either by mass emigration, or (imperial or colony) expansion, or starvation, or society collapse.
A classic example is ancient Greece where city states routinely sent people oversea to relieve local population pressure.
At the time the planet was pretty empty (compared to today) and there was plenty of space to move too.
Similar issue for Europe when we started emigrating in mass to the new world.

We also have plenty of example of societies of the past that, after growing at the limit of what their environment could sustain, were not able to alleviate population pressure and collapsed into mass starvation or civil war.

Typical example is Easter Island, where all resources were consumed, all trees cut, and people ended killing each-other in mass until population dropped drastically.

However there are a few examples of societies that did reach the limit and instituted strict laws to limit population and to limit over-exploitation of natural resources.
The most remarkable example is Tokugawa-era forest management in Japan and connected laws for population control, fishing, and farming.
In this case Japan was overpopulated and they were reached the limit of their resources (i.e. almost completely deforested).
Even today Japan is arguably the most forested of the industrial countries (67% of land area).

Today we are reaching a point were resources will get scarce and we are consuming more than what our environment can support.
It's unlikely that anybody will ever voluntarily scale back on the quality of their life to consume less resources.
At the same time a larger part of today population will consume much more than what they do today.

We have experience from the past and capacity to see the long term consequences of our decisions, it's not smart to dig our head in the sand and pretend that everything will be fine by itself.

Well, pretty much all human cultures were nomadic by necessity until 8,000 years ago. Regarding the birthrate thing I remember reading that various Native American cultures were careful about controlling their birthrates, I don't remember which ones.


You don't necessarily have to have fewer, you just have to make more money. The US population is still climbing (though I know many European nations are in slight decline) and the US is the most consumeristic nation on Earth. Many rich people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for fertility treatment (rather than adopt some child in peril from a 3rd world country) because a baby is considered another commodity everyone should have a "right" to have.


Global poverty has increased though. I'm sure some the rich most in poor countries have gotten richer though.


I've offered plenty if you've paid attention. What have you offered? "Human nature". Invoking human nature is like a sign that says baseless opinion.


Nothing is strictly due to overpopulation but how about, destruction of the rainforest (for living & creating jobs to graze cattle & grow soy for fast food for Americans), destruction of topsoil (overfarming & chemical farming to keep up with feeding a hungry world), overfishing (to feed people), climate change (people don't want to be poor, most of them would like the chance to drive, buy factory produced goods & otherwise increase their eco-footprint).

Do I really need to include more? I mean it's common sense. The 7 people in your house analogy was an attempt to make things visceral for you but I guess it failed. Perhaps you could visit Bangladesh.


There's that human nature comment again. A way of saying nothing without (sadly ) saying nothing.





If you think the current economic situation is simply a random recession without any broader context I don't know how to help you. The current economic system based on unlimited growth is unsustainable, there are lessons in the current financial meltdown if you're open to them.


Bubble.


It didn't exactly. Both overpopulation & the economic bubble of the last 150 years are based off of a vision of permanent exponential growth which is not feasible in the long term. The harder & longer we try to maintain it the harder we will crash.


That's ridiculous. Housing was genuinely overpriced. There's no justification for someone having to spend 20-30 years worth of paychecks just to get a roof over their head.


Like I said to Alassius I don't recall which ones specifically. In tribal settings prolonged breastfeeding & lots of exercise naturally kept women from giving birth to the extremely high numbers seen after the industrial revolution (and still seen in certain countries today). When women have control over their lives & are not subject to domination or religious fundamentalism (usually go hand in hand) they generally have fewer.

Some cultures even practiced infanticide if people selfishly decided to have more than the culture deemed sustainable. Obviously that's not really something we want to do now. We can merely disincentivize children (especially beyond two).


No tax breaks for kids beyond two would go a long way I think. Also make teenagers learn more about babies than carrying an egg around for the day & compare it to how difficult child-rearing is.


No you shouldn't. The whole argument that rich people should be able to do whatever they please regardless of environmental or moral costs is one deeply ingrained in the "American dream" but one I find morally repugnant.


It's up to the leaders of the country to support that. Generally I would agree with most of the people here, women's rights, access to contraception, etc. We could also not make these nations are trade partners (generally high-birthrate nations are pretty backwards anyway).


Forget about babies for a minute. Another way to help would be to eliminate the stigma on suicide. This ironically would probably reduce suicides among the young & people who are merely trying to call out for help (but fear anger & judgment from family & friends if they admit to feeling suicidal or perhaps worse, being institutionalized & drugged up) but might increase them among people in chronic pain with nothing to live for, but this is a good thing.

Lot of very old people are basically vegetables but their existence creates jobs (nurses, etc.) and nets their families their Social Security. Now, should we cut off these people's life support or stop caring for them? Well that's a touchy subject which I won't touch. But we could allow people to have a Dr. Kevorkian type visit & kill them if they ever get severe enough dementia. I would certainly sign off on something like that for myself. I don't want to watch TV in a stupor drooling on myself for my last ten years, I'd rather be dead.

Lot of options & things to talk about but unfortunately almost all of them are taboo and will provoke intensely negative reactions amongst the thoughtless masses.

Ummm... nowhere in your answer did you talk about who would enforce this globally... because it is basically completely impossible.

You can't stop people from making babies, short of draconian measures... authorizing suicide, which is allowed in many places, will hardly take care of that many people...
You plan, it makes no sense... at all.

We can't just "forget about babies for a minute" if we are talking about going from 7B to 1B people... it's just not in human nature!

 

[kochman]

There are very scarce examples mostly because global overpopulation is a modern event.
In the past we had a lot of examples of local overpopulation that were "solved" either by mass emigration, or (imperial or colony) expansion, or starvation, or society collapse.
A classic example is ancient Greece where city states routinely sent people oversea to relieve local population pressure.
At the time the planet was pretty empty (compared to today) and there was plenty of space to move too.
Similar issue for Europe when we started emigrating in mass to the new world.

We also have plenty of example of societies of the past that, after growing at the limit of what their environment could sustain, were not able to alleviate population pressure and collapsed into mass starvation or civil war.

Typical example is Easter Island, where all resources were consumed, all trees cut, and people ended killing each-other in mass until population dropped drastically.

However there are a few examples of societies that did reach the limit and instituted strict laws to limit population and to limit over-exploitation of natural resources.
The most remarkable example is Tokugawa-era forest management in Japan and connected laws for population control, fishing, and farming.
In this case Japan was overpopulated and they were reached the limit of their resources (i.e. almost completely deforested).
Even today Japan is arguably the most forested of the industrial countries (67% of land area).

Today we are reaching a point were resources will get scarce and we are consuming more than what our environment can support.
It's unlikely that anybody will ever voluntarily scale back on the quality of their life to consume less resources.
At the same time a larger part of today population will consume much more than what they do today.

We have experience from the past and capacity to see the long term consequences of our decisions, it's not smart to dig our head in the sand and pretend that everything will be fine by itself.

Well, short of emigration to another planet, the Greek model cannot be applied... That isn't really population control, anyhow, that's simply finding new land because there was no population control.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I am sure that the planet can sustain even 10 billion people or more. With better planning of social space and new materials for architecture.

We need to abolish property.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

I am sure that the planet can sustain even 10 billion people or more. With better planning of social space and new materials for architecture.

Should be pretty easy. Funny how all the cry of overpopulation comes from people living in large metros. Noone takes into account population density. My home state, 138/sqmi; my home county 65/sqmi; county I work in 23/sqmi. I gots plenty of elbow room.

Footnote: numbers from 2000 census, can't find 2010.

 

[El_Machinae]

We actually have a bit more leeway than the truly concerned experience, because we can cut back on meat in order to conserve more environment, water, and energy

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

A better comprehensive land and agrarian reform. One solution is to increase the price of meat so we all will be not that much different than Narz.


Also many other factors and concerns may be needed to radically change the social dynamics on how we eat.

 

[Narz]

One solution is to increase the price of meat so we all will be not that much different than Narz.

As if it were that easy.

 

[wolfigor]

Well, short of emigration to another planet, the Greek model cannot be applied... That isn't really population control, anyhow, that's simply finding new land because there was no population control.

I never said it would be feasible: it was an example from the past to see how cultures dealt with overpopulation in the past, and how we can not adopt the same strategies today.
As I wrote in my post we are more like a large Easter Island in space, like it we are burning resources faster than their renewal rate and we risk to end-up in a similar situation.
I agree with you that it's hard to change a mentality developed in hundreds of millennia, but unlimited population growth is not sustainable.
As humans we can take care measures to mitigate the problem or just close our eyes and hope for the best.

Should be pretty easy. Funny how all the cry of overpopulation comes from people living in large metros. Noone takes into account population density. My home state, 138/sqmi; my home county 65/sqmi; county I work in 23/sqmi. I gots plenty of elbow room.

In the world places with low population density are so due to very good reasons.
At the same time it will be not nice if every habitable part of the planet will have the same population density of Calcutta.

 

[kochman]

I never said it would be feasible: it was an example from the past to see how cultures dealt with overpopulation in the past, and how we can not adopt the same strategies today.
As I wrote in my post we are more like a large Easter Island in space, like it we are burning resources faster than their renewal rate and we risk to end-up in a similar situation.
I agree with you that it's hard to change a mentality developed in hundreds of millennia, but unlimited population growth is not sustainable.
As humans we can take care measures to mitigate the problem or just close our eyes and hope for the best.

Don't get me wrong... I am a conservationist... and would prefer less people myself.
However, I am a pragmatist first.

Unless the entire world agrees to take measures to curb growth, consumption, etc, it is probably not going to happen. Why give up your access to resource consumption if your neighbor isn't going to? They have an advantage over you, get rich, and eventually conquer you... because they have more people and more money to arm those people, and now they need the space you occupy.

Specifically with population... let's say Europe and N. America decide to limit their spawning of children (which has basically happened de facto... they become less and less important demographically, as other places refuse to do such things for any of 100 reasons they say they have...

Anyhow, it would be nice to limit growth, but as you point out, it has to be voluntary, and getting billions of people to agree is never easy.

I think things like war, famine, disease, etc will take care of overpopulation, and that will be painful...