There are some straightforward solutions to many of these problems that have been made more complex (unnecessarily) because they cross precious lines of ideolog

There are some straightforward solutions to many of these problems that have been made more complex (unnecessarily) because they cross precious lines of ideology and religion, among other things. For example, there are homosexual couples in the world who want children. Many are wealthy enough to adopt more than one child. In any sane debate it should be unquestionable that a child is better off being child #1 in a middle-class family, with better opportunities for economic and social stability than they would have as child #5 in a poor household. But there are people who would shout until they're blue in the face to prevent this from happening, simply because the parents are gay. Another extremely unpopular but practical solution is contraceptives and even abortion. Why are parents shamed into birthing a child that they cannot afford to raise, in a world whose population is greater than at any point in history? Unquestionably if the average size of families decreased, incomes would be less strained and poverty levels would have a fighting chance to go down as well. A third unpopular solution is grouped housing. For some reason it's been hammered into everyone's heads that they should have a house and a yard and a dog, and that a single family should live in it. But the reality is that a large structure could hold 2 families or more, if people were willing to live like that. It would not only decrease costs, but it would improve nutrition: it's much more practical to cook a decent meal for many people than for a few people (it's easier to acquire good food in quantities that won't go to waste, etc.).