"You" refers to Strobiusmip -- one level up. I mis-posted.

What you advocate won't work, even though it's quite true that population world-wide must be brought under control, i.e. reduced.

This will require global agreement between countries. China's early policies were directionally correct, if not always done in the best way. It can't be left to individuals to choose how many children they have anymore than conservation can be left to individual whim. You conserve, I whoop it up. No.

But the direness of the situation has to be made clear to people, arrangements made for their care in old age, the opportunity for people who love lots of children to be around them, and so on. Then they will accept, however grudgingly, necessity. But this hasn't happened in any area yet. We don't have leadership, just profiteering.

Disease, energy shortages, wars... these are the things that will cull the population. Try to tell rice farmers in southeast asia, who don't have the benefits of things like social security, pensions, health care, etc. that they can only have one child. People aren't going to do this stuff willingly. Furthermore, the earth can easily support 10-15 billion people. Of course not everybody will be able to eat meat, but I don't think that's a loss.

I wonder... 1 person = 1 acre is a common ratio bandied about, often more like 1 person = 2 acres, but I think one is doable. Under that assumption it should be true that there is enough space for all. But that implies space. It also implies planned and organized distribution. To everyone. I think it's a safe assumption that unless there is a massive and near-universal move to a sustainable paradigm, we won't be able to handle 15 billion people since the earth does not now sustainably handle 6.7 billion.