If the environment can't be made to support the population of a species, the species won't be able to grow.

It's pretty basic ecology: if the environment the population inhabits can't support a growing population, then the population experiences negative changes. We humans have created our environment for billions of us, and now we're discovering just how bad our systems were designed for the masses. It doesn't matter that we COULD have a higher population and we COULD feed everyone, WE CAN'T AND WE WON'T. So yes, the planet is overpopulated.

Job competition, useless degrees, expensive basic infrastructure like $30,000 to paint a crosswalk, and everyone crowding into two lane roads to get into and out of suburbs on their way to work. We messed up, and yet all the wealthiest people in the world continue to keep all their chips on Black (growth).

e.... i don't know, im not an optimist

Does that mean our only salvation is AI and robots?

That most humans to exist only appeared in like the past 200 years? The average human spoke a global language like English, Mandarin, or Spanish, practiced a religion such as Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism, and lived under similar systems of government? To add cherry on the top, half of those humans lived in South Asia or East Asia.

I know this may not be the most related thing for this sub, but this is a fact that always blows my mind. You often hear on social media "99% of human existence was lacking this" or "pre historic man did blah blah blah." However the ironic part is that living in like California in 100 AD or Europe in 3000 BC would have been extreme outliers in terms of the human condition. Electricity, air travel, modern medicine are more typical to a random human than a world without metallurgy or writing.

As much as I want this fascist regime to be over, I’m worried people will start having kids way way way more once life gets better. I’m really hoping this isn’t a byproduct of Dems getting elected

while factors such as education and urbanization can affect fertility rates downward, they are not the main facto. the factor most important has always been culture, a couple who both have PHDs and live in a megalopolis like New York, Tokyo, Shanghai, Mumbai and London but who are deeply X (insert X pro big family culture) culturally then they WILL have many kids

One of the most effective ways to slow population growth in poor and developing countries may be to focus on educating girls and young women.

There is a strong connection between female education and demographic change. Women who receive more education often marry later and tend to have fewer children. Therefore, if a country wants to address rapid population growth over the long term, investing in girls' education could be an important place to start.

A practical approach would be to concentrate particularly on girls between the ages of 13 and 18. This is an important period because, in some communities, girls may face pressure to marry at a young age. Education can give them another path: continuing their studies, developing skills, and preparing for greater independence.

In other words, it is like placing a police officer at a T-junction to prevent traffic from taking the wrong turn. Instead of trying to deal with the consequences later, we intervene at an earlier point where a different direction is still possible.

The emphasis of education at this stage should not simply be academic. It should also motivate girls to continue their education, develop their abilities, and understand the opportunities available to them beyond early marriage.

If we want to influence population growth in a sustainable and humane way, educating girls may be one of the most important places to begin.

Dear Community Members, I am currently researching effective strategies and policy measures aimed at stabilizing or managing population growth in India. Given its status as the world's most populous nation, rapid demographic expansion presents various socioeconomic and environmental challenges. I would greatly appreciate insights, proposed solutions, or analytical perspectives on how these challenges can be addressed, along with an explanation of their potential efficacy. Thank you for your time and expertise.

I see many pro natalists say that fertilty rates are already below replacement level. this is true but fertility rate does not reflect existing birth rate. for example in 2025 India had total increase of 0.8 percent lower than previous years, however there was still 23 million births in that single year.

these 23 million souls will have over a decade of using tax payer money and the money of their parents and then enter the overcrowded hyper competitive (on the part of the job seekers) labor market. now there will also be child labor which is a further tragedy and a sign of stagnation, not growth at least not growth in human wellbeing, just growth in consumers and labor.

schools are almost universally more crowded than a decade ago. now some people might complain “why can’t we build more schools, this is government corruption not overpopulation“. but this is caused by overpopulation as the root problem. furthurmore, just think about the difficulty of building more schools in the areas most people live, in most areas even suburban areas you have to buy a existing propert, tear it down and build a new school

finally there is the law of supply and demand and of prices. what people who worry about the fertility rate forget is that the fertilty rate can go up just as it went down. The current Gen Z and Gen A are basically in a state of oversupply where the manufacturers made too many and the buyers are either not buying or buying cheaply. if the next generation is shorter in supply and more in demand people will have more incentive to have kids

Countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan/Egypt are running out of water because the population increased 5x in the last 50 years. We already have to use 22 000 desalination plants to supply 300 Million people with drinkable water, because of Water scarcity.

Fertilizer is tight due to the Russia/Iran war.

And pretty much everyone except 20 countries have run out of oil. By 2040 there will be only around 10 countries left which can export larger quantities of oil.

Between 1984 and 2025 our Primary Energy use doubled from 89 000 Terrawatt hours to 178 000 Terawatt hours.

The share of Oil/Coal/Gas in 1984 was 72 500 TWh or 81.5% of the total.

The share of Oil/Coal/Gas in 2025 was 144 000 TWh or 80.9% of the total.

Despite a small drop in overall percentage, we are now burning twice the amount of Oil/Coal/Gas as in 1984.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy-by-source

Renewables and EV´s are a joke. Solar/Wind/Hydro supply just 5% of Primary Energy supply. Out of 1.7 Billion motor vehicles, just 80 Million or less than 5% are EV´s.

There is not enough copper, lithium, silicon in the world to build enough EV batteries and solar panels and wind turbines to supply even half our energy needs.

There are simply too many humans. 8.3 Billion is unsustainable. Even 4 Billion would probably be too much.

Thanks to cheap energy in form of oil and its use in medical products we multiplied like rabbits in the 20th and 21st centuries. Now the reckoning is here.

Malthus and Ehrlich were right. Malthus was only off by like two centuries. Ehrlich by like 6 decades.

They wouldnt be the first scholars that were ridiculed but where a century or two later it turned out that they were right.

"If we halved our oil/energy/food/water consumption, then we could EASILY supply 15 Billion people. We dont have an overpopulation but an overconsumption problem".

This "argument" is on the level of "if this person didnt drink 3 Liters of water every day but just 1.5 liters then the water would be enough for 2 people".

Its healthier to drink 3 liters of water than 1.5. For many people 1.5 Liters of water would not even be enough to sustain them in the long term.

So basically the "overconsumption" crowd says: If everyone lived like shit, we could have more people living like shit.

You cannot have more people with everyone having a decent living standard. This only works with fewer people.

people who are like this women want or are too stupid to understand they are advocating for, us all to overcrowded livestock who are fed well. they do not care about mental sanity, unemployment from high competition

Even The original poster (OP) said it's hard to believe a case like this could even happen in modern times. The growth rate is absolutely insane.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1k1ruuz/will_south_koreas_comprehensive_natalism_policy/ (Take a look at this. This pro-natalist policies is genuinely scary. 😡😡😡)

Yes, and I can guess the reason why. It’s not that population have suddenly become more family-oriented; rather, an explosive baby boom is being driven by the carrot of asset accumulation.

2.1 Tfr is not just a number .It is balance one population has to maintain to keep its population stable you go slightly up to 2.4 and slightly below 1.6 you will see huge results over a century in population demographics .I think that how early we realize this is good for human being it self .

Tfr of 4.2 can double your population over 25 years and 1.2 can half it provided they are maintained for a period of time .I don't know how governments and policy makers are going to tackle it but if this should made integral part of country's long term policy if they are to reduce population it should not go down below 1.9 .

For if not done so and this important factor is left on public choice we can see changes are devastating within shorter period of times .We are not seeing these now ? why because of population momentums !

Mark my words ! I have studied them enough for last 3 years and this is delicate balance which world is ignoring and must be regulated .Nor tfr 1.3 or 2.4 is good .

Fossil fuels have hidden the true cost of 8 billion people. Here’s what could happen when the illusion ends.

In a study recently published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, scientists pored over two centuries’ worth of historical population records and ecological growth models to see whether the planet could keep up. They concluded that while humanity’s resource output kept pace with population increases for generations—largely driven by innovation, technological advancement, and increased efficiency—the tables started to turn in the early 1960s, not long before the publication of The Population Bomb. Around that time, the human population continued skyrocketing, but ecological resources began to shrink.

The result? For nearly 60 years, humanity has been writing a check that neither it—nor the planet—can cash. More humans means more resources, energy, and food, and in much of the industrialized world, overconsumption and unending growth lie at the foundation of the entire economy. The situation is so dire that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) even lists population growth as a key driver of greenhouse gas emissions.

But how has our population been able to grow beyond a size that our host planet can really support? One big reason is that finite fossil fuels can temporarily hide the effects of ecological overshoot. In other words, continuing to support a growing economy as well as a growing population just doesn’t math out in the long run—or even in the here and now.