With the World's population projected to reach 8 billion people later this year, and estimated to top 10 billion by the end of the century, the question is;

Is the World overpopulated, and if so, what should be done about it?

If the answer is yes, then the simplistic solution is some form of birth and death control, but such intervention can be radical in the extreme.

A good article on the subject was published in "The Guardian' late last year.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/12/is-our-planet-overpopulated-we-ask-the-expert

Dear Paul,

Prof. Tor Hundloe in his book, "From Buddha to Bono:
Seeki9ng sustainability," pointed out that -
"Humans have the intelligence, the tools, and the
natural resources to provide for a good sustainable
life as long as there are not so many of humans that we
exceed the globe's carrying capacity."

All the evidence suggests that we must turn around
population growth and aim for a much smaller population
than we have today. The experts who measure human
demands on the planet suggest if - by some miracle
of economics - everyone living today was to have a
middle-class life-style we would immediately need two
or three more planet earths.

We need to recognise serious overbalance as an inevitable
consequence of human population growth. The only choice we
have is sensible birth control - the less environmental damage
we will need to repair. We can do this. Population decline
is already occurring in the First World.

A better world is possible. It won't be easy - but it can be
done.

And it will be done, probably by more wars for starters and then a turn to genocide by the victors to even things out.

Its true that the UN has and still predicts 10 billion by 2100. But better analysis shows that the population 'problem' is already effectively resolved. The UN has a vested interest in making the problem seem immediate and dire since that means more money for them.

But other analysis shows the population peaking much earlier and falling precipitously by the end of the century. And even that is probably now out of date.

Previously it was estimated that China's population would halve by 2100 but new revelations about their census shows that they have over-estimated their population by about 100 million and that their numbers could have from 1.4billion to 750 million by 2060.

Populations are falling all over the world. China, Japan, Russia, almost every country in Europe. Places like the US and Australia only maintain or increase numbers because of immigration.

The only place where numbers are and are predicted to rise is sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria is predicted to be second only to India in numbers by 2100. Tanzania, Egypt, Congo and Ethiopia will all move into the top ten by population by 2100.

So its an African problem. Nothing needs to be done elsewhere, because elsewhere the problem is already resolved. So what to do about the African problem? Development. As nations move from underdeveloped to developing they move to low population growth. Every single time.

Of course, even seeing more people as a problem is the wrong way to look at it. The greatest resource the world has is the human brain. Having more of them is always good, never a problem. Places where numbers are indeed falling, are now coming to see THAT as the problem.

If the question is of survival and proper feeding, then technology allows human population to increase further and further, possibly even into new orders of magnitude. Science can deal with that.

But if we ask about the quality and purpose of life, then squeezing so many people together takes away the taste and reason to live.

Survival in overpopulated conditions requires two things: technology and regimentation, and humanity has been doing just that, along the path of least resistance. Regimentation takes away our freedom and independence, thus leaves us with no real purpose: if we are all to be uniform, merely numbers, then just one of us will suffice - why then have many?

Most of the technology we now have (with the notable exception of medicine) is not intended to, and indeed does not improve, the quality of our lives - only to cope with the numbers: look carefully beyond the shiny presentations for this is what it does. Technology is also used as a drug to distract us with entertainment in the service of regimentation, to take away our free time and free thinking, to lull us into becoming couch-potatoes rather than live our own lives, so we create less trouble to those in control.

So to restore our freedom and purpose, human population must be cut drastically. For reasonably worthwhile living, the number of humans on this planet should not exceed 100-200 millions.

But how to get there? Since we don't want to become murderers, the solution must come from the other end: birth-control. Ideally everyone who is sexually active should get sterilised over the next several generations. Culturally, having children should become a source of shame, not pride and there should also be no financial incentives to reproduce, only disincentives: even then, the fertility "accidents" which are bound to still happen will remain more than enough to prevent human extinction.

Forced sterilization as a result of pandemic vaccines