Wow, that is a powerful set of facts. However, I think it will be impossible to curtail the population growth of the world until it gets to the point where overpopulation begins to have a negative economic impact.

Let's break that down:

Today when a new child is born he has a positive marginal value because that child will eventually contribute labor that will create value (that will go into somebody's pocket).

The world will be ready to tackle overpopulation when the marginal value of a new child becomes negative (that labor/value that the child will create does not offset the depletion of natural resources that he/she will consume).

The real question then becomes: how do we measure the depletion of resources? This question is very tough to answer. My guess is that more sophisticated attempts to calculate this question will be undertaken when it becomes clear that the end is near.

I only hope that it won't be too late!

It may level off the world population growth, but did you read the part in my comment about how if everyone in the world consumed as much as the average American, the earth could only sustain a

population of 1.8 billion people (and even if everyone didn't, they still would consume a far greater amount of natural resources than they would have in a 3rd or 2nd world country)? If we had infinite resources and land, this would be no problem and I would agree with you. However, a huge detrimental factor of population growth is resource depletion, and bringing all countries to 1st world status would cause an unprecedented depletion of natural resources; we'd probably spend all the oil, natural gas and goal to provide energy to the world, which would greatly increase CO2 emissions, cause the water levels to rise even more rapidly, and possibly cause another mass extinction as indicated by the article I posted in the Peak Oil debate (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223130549.htm).

About your inverse correlation - true, but not quite as you stated. As nations are modernized, death rates decrease as more advanced health services are made available. Take Sri Lanka for instance; in 1945 the death rate was 22/1000. In 1946, a large-scale mosquito-control program using DDT was implemented, greatly reducing the number of malaria cases. The death rate dropped to 10/1000 in nine years, and by 2006, it was 6/1000. A decline in birth rates occurred, however at a much slower rate (19/1000 in 2006). While there is a loose negative correlation, it is not always the case, and more often than not the decline in birth rates happens at a much slower pace than the decline in death rates, still resulting in an increase in population growth (take a look at this graph of China's population/birth rate/death rate from 1949-1996: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_10.htm) )

And, just for reference sake: I'm not saying "SCREW ALL SUFFERING PEOPLE!" or anything to that effect; I wish there was a way to have everyone have an equal shot at living a good life without worrying about starving or being killed in a war or whatnot, but we can't possibly achieve that at our current rate. That's the crappy part about this population problem.

I wanted to make it clear I wasn't advocating mass genocide because, as seen with Dr. Pianka, there are some people who jump to conclusions and assume anyone speaking of the dangers of overpopulation are Nazis or mass murderers or other likewise absurd labels.

I do agree with your point on less resource consumption; I don't think it's too much to ask for first world nations (particularly the US) to limit power consumption or develop methods of saving energy, as well as evolving our technology to be more environmentally friendly and energy efficient (or at least using renewable sources of energy).

The resource crisis has two sides to it: technological limits and environmental limits. For example, as oil goes into terminal decline worldwide, there will be lest petroleum to fuel the machinery needed to extract more oil, or not enough funds for the companies to continue excavation prospects (cost to benefit ratio). There is predicted to be enough oil to last for 27 years (at our current rate of consumption, which is growing yearly). Due to the increased consumption and the aforementioned technology problem, oil likely won't last two decades, possibly in 10-15 years.

The shrinking farmland is a major issue that's primarily environmental - sure, cities can be built on the expanding deserts, however the loss of fertile cropland would be a huge blow to global food supply. Already wheat prices are rising sharply, and when more cropland is either destroyed due to over plowing or rising sea levels (for delta farmlands), the prices will continue to rise. And with wheat fields being destroyed, the thousands of kinds of foods made with wheat will also increase in price. Will it be apocalyptic? No, but it sure as hell won't be pretty.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the 4 sq metre house argument. Cramming as many people in as small a space as possible really doesn't sound like a tantalizing solution to the issue, and you also must account for the space needed for a bed, a toilet, a food storage space, a water source, as well as any personal belongings one owns. And people also need jobs, so more structures there. Roads to provide travel, stores to buy food, public services... it's not as simple as housing everyone on the planet in sheds.

And waiting for the population to level off isn't that great of a solution either. By then oil will be gone completely, the human population will increase to 12 billion people (in the worst case scenario), and society will be unsustainable. Even if people decided to forgo modern appliances and technology and attempt to live off the land (since that might be the only alternative if infrastructure fails), the temperature increase from global warming, coupled with the damage of the natural environment (in particular the infertility of cropland), would kill off hundreds of millions of people, if not billions. And if first world nations find alternative sources of energy to run their society, the food crisis would still be a problem, and the people in third world nations might starve. As the population gets bigger, fewer people will be able to live with the modern technology and luxuries available to first world nations, and more people will be stuck at the bottom with poor health services, inadequate dwellings, much less food, etc.

Not trying to paint some doomsday picture, but things will not be good if we continue breeding and consuming at our current rate, just waiting for the population to level off. The core of this issue is sustainability, and 12 or even 9 billion people is not a sustainable population. The discrepancy between the wealthy and the impoverished will become greater and greater.

Another issue about overpopulation is the threat of disease. With land loss from rising sea levels and heightened immigration at people leave infertile croplands to head into larger cities, population density increases. This means a higher chance for a pandemic of a deadly and highly contagious virus to occur. Ebola, while not dangerous on a large scale currently, could reach pandemic status if an outbreak occurred in a densely populated city. Not good.

We're probably one of the only species that ignores weakness. We try to make the world easier for us to live rather than adjust our lives to live in this world as it is.

As far as having the right to live, rights are not god-given and they are not guaranteed from birth, they are only guaranteed by government.

Estimates for the population are between 8 and 12 billion by 2050 and if technology cannot continue to supplement our lifestyles/population, we will realize that we cannot 'fight' nature.

I am not condoning to take the stupid people out.

But unfortunately, stupidity is not a trait that influences reproduction. On the contrary.

NB: The video does not give extra credibility, but extra entertainment value.