isn't it ironic that, in just a few days, slate publishes an article about how we need to have less babies and then one about how a country is desperate to have more? it's easy to think there's too many of us in a country like the U.S. since so many people immigrate here. but one look at Russia, Ukraine, or any other Eastern European country shows that in a couple generations (if that) there will hardly be enough people to maintain their infrastructures. the same goes for China. sure, there's way too many people there now, but do the math: one child for every couple means, in one generation, the population is cut in half. on top of that, people would kill off or abort daughters so they could have sons. this means there's way more men than women, which means a lot of men aren't going to get a chance to reproduce. basically, because of articles like this, i don't think we need to worry about over population.

Nope,

You are quite wrong. All the definitive population estimates by various credible agencies compute a 9.5-11 billion person human population by 2050.  The fact that some countries will experience shrinking populations in no way refutes the fact that the overall population will increase to the numbers cited above.  The issue is that manycountries have way too many people and a small minority of countries have started to have a slowly decling population.  Overall, the number of people and their lifestyle demands place untenable demands on the Earth's resources.  The demand for land space, usable water, energy, minerals, and resource sinks to contain our waste by-products is directly proportional to the number of people...therefore, population management and stability at sustainable levels is the paramount, #1 policy priority for the World.

Thanks to everyone who is as concerned as I am about this particular issue. A friend and I were recently having a conversation about this very subject and he had told me about Alan Weisman’s book. I was relieved to hear of someone else who shares my oft reputed and scoffed-at doomsday vision of the world/earth and it’s people. It seems a simple, easily understood fact, that, as some countries are waning in population, this is certainly not the case for the overall world population which, as far as I can tell, is the REAL issue. The earth is a finite place. The resources she provides us, it would follow, are finite as well. It is also interesting to me that more discussion regarding the exponential growth nature of these particular issues is not more readily presented. Another friend once gave me the following graphic example: If you took a chess board, of the normal 64-square variety, and placed one grain of rice on the first square and by easy multiplication, doubled the rice for the subsequent squares, you would, by the end of the 64 square board, find that there are not enough grains of rice on earth to fulfill the equation. Noting as well, that the most profound leaps in growth happen in the very last few squares so that the overall effect is not easily noticed until quite close to the end. It would appear to me, that using this analogy, one might argue that world population growth and it’s net effect on the earth are somewhere around the 65th or 66th square….suggesting as well that the ‘game’ of life as we know it is almost over—relatively speaking…

self-correction regarding the last entry: by reputed, I indeed meant "poorly reputed" thanks for understanding human err.

So I'm curious as to where those of you posting here who actually understand the overpopulation issue live, because I'm in Oklahoma, where the only thing anyone does is have kids, and as a young, unmarried female who has pledged to adopt if I choose to become a parent, I'm laughed at, mocked and rarely taken seriously. Everyone tells me I'll change my mind, as if the population is going to drop a couple billion in the next couple years. If it does (which is not out of the question) it will be due to a world condition in which I would not want to have children anyway.

Gee! You possess the potential to birth a child that may save the world! Wish you had more hope!

Estimates are anything but definitive.

Don't need to worry about overpopulation in the USA? Then I guess you have never been to South Florida, Southern California, Houston, New York City or any other place of known name.

Even small towns in remote places see people displacing wild animal habitats and the animals now have no place to go.

Yes, we are overpopulated and WHY does our government have to act like the corporate giant that needs to grow and grow to make some executive be able to file a report that makes him look good according to growth and expansion? Could the answer be "Greed"?

If the post about possessing the ability to birth a child who might save the world was directed at me, ARGHHHH... I have so many things to argue here I don't think I have the finger strength to say it all. Briefly, why do MORE HUMANS equal saving the world? Saving humanity, MAYBE, but the best thing for the earth would likely be a significant drop in human population. And in my scenario, where I mentioned losing a couple billion, humanity would still be far from extinction and therefore not in need of saving. However, if I did possess the ability to birth a child in a world that needed saving, how selfish would it be for me to have a child and force that child to live in a world in such bad shape and with such expectations as to his/her future?? I would never have a child expecting them to do any particular thing with their lives, and I would never have a child knowing the world I was bringing them into was in such a bad state. Geez.

Ever been to Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana? Everyone just wants to live where it's warm. It's not the end of the world. When people get fed up living on top of each other, they'll move to where it's less populated. We left California 29 yrs ago for Oklahoma. It's cheaper, less crowded, etc.

LunarGazer:

Nope,

You are quite wrong. All the definitive population estimates by various credible agencies compute a 9.5-11 billion person human population by 2050. The fact that some countries will experience shrinking populations in no way refutes the fact that the overall population will increase to the numbers cited above. The issue is that manycountries have way too many people and a small minority of countries have started to have a slowly decling population. Overall, the number of people and their lifestyle demands place untenable demands on the Earth's resources. The demand for land space, usable water, energy, minerals, and resource sinks to contain our waste by-products is directly proportional to the number of people...therefore, population management and stability at sustainable levels is the paramount, #1 policy priority for the World.

People have been predicting the imminent destruction of the world through over-population for going on 100 years now. It ain't gonna happen folks.

Human ingenuity is our most important resource. Let some genius figure out how to cost-effectively desalinate water from the ocean or perfect cold fusion and it's a whole new ball game. We could literally make the Sahara bloom again.

Liberals just don't have enough faith in the ability of free people to solve their own problems.