> Is the absolute value of the population the issue or is resources used/carbon output, per capita, a more significant problem? Both are problems. We are over

> Is the absolute value of the population the issue or is resources used/carbon output, per capita, a more significant problem? Both are problems. We are over the carrying capacity so we are bringing on collapse, even if rate of growth is decreasing, which still means the total number is increasing. The numbers I've seen suggest the population that could sustain living around the world average consumption is roughly the population before the Haber-Bosch process enabled us to feed ourselves fossil fuels -- about 2 billion. Could 7.6 or 10 billion live on 20% of that per capita? Why bother asking when families with 1 child can be filled with as much love as families with more? All the knee-jerk responses to lowering birth rate pale in comparison to dealing with the problems we will face from nature. That's why we need to talk about population, even more than peat.