What would overpopulation mean (number)

At this very point, the real question emerges: Conscious 8.3 billion people or 4.8 billion people in consumerist frenzy?

I think it would be quite hard to convert sinful humanity... many of them smoke, drink alcohol, wear tattoos or piercings, read or watch fiction, breach copyright laws, etc. so I think the setting of population size to 4.8 billion people would be easier and more liberal than commanding 8.3 billion people, and preventing all of them from sinning. By the way, I'm also thinking on political economy about how to make the system better, but I don't think people can be easily converted, so human nature should be calculated in the picture and the possibilities and options.

I think it would be quite hard to convert sinful humanity... many of them smoke, drink alcohol, wear tattoos or piercings, read or watch fiction, breach copyright laws, etc. so I think the setting of population size to 4.8 billion people would be easier and more liberal than commanding 8.3 billion people, and preventing all of them from sinning. By the way, I'm also thinking on political economy about how to make the system better, but I don't think people can be easily converted, so human nature should be calculated in the picture and the possibilities and options.

So how would you elect the people? Which 4.8 billion of 8.3 billion would you spare? Depending on what?

So how would you elect the people? Which 4.8 billion of 8.3 billion would you spare? Depending on what?

I was only writing about the theory and the long term. Of course, the current situation is different because there are already 8.3 billion people, which shall or will decrease first. So basically I argue that we should care for limiting overpopulation besides doing other environmentalist steps as well. The numbers may be different, e.g. instead of 4.8 billion we can write the current 8.3 billion, and instead of 8.3 billion, we can write 10 billion (in 2050). We can do little, so it's probable that we cannot convince people to diminish the population size to 4.8 billions, so it's probable that a big crisis will do it. But after the crisis, there may be about 4.8 billion survivors who may understand that it's not good to overpopulate again. This may require population control, which is obviously less than full control against all the sins. As for me, I fear violent death more than not having offspring.

Whenever our house is being raided by an army of minions on playdates of our two daughters, I have a feeling which is somewhat reminiscent of enduring the inevitable side effects of overpopulation: a mini version of survival of the fittest and a playful struggle for scarce resources.

I was only writing about the theory and the long term. Of course, the current situation is different because there are already 8.3 billion people, which shall or will decrease first. So basically I argue that we should care for limiting overpopulation besides doing other environmentalist steps as well. The numbers may be different, e.g. instead of 4.8 billion we can write the current 8.3 billion, and instead of 8.3 billion, we can write 10 billion (in 2050). We can do little, so it's probable that we cannot convince people to diminish the population size to 4.8 billions, so it's probable that a big crisis will do it. But after the crisis, there may be about 4.8 billion survivors who may understand that it's not good to overpopulate again. This may require population control, which is obviously less than full control against all the sins. As for me, I fear violent death more than not having offspring.

I notice that your concerns are fundamentally related to "Malthusian catastrophe". On the other hand, Neo-Malthusian theories generally walk arm in arm with Social Darwinism and Francis Galton's eugenics. It has no redeeming feature such as biocentric or ecocentric approach, but anthropocentic misconception. That's quite usuall to see that the misanthropy of "overpopulation" thinkers is also seen in their “‘Half Earth’ vision”. Population needs consideration, but not in the reductive, homogenising way our “overpopulation” authors have done. Population demographics is an important discipline, mapping changes both between generations, and across geographical regions. Pointing the population guilty is either opting for the easy way out or harboring a hidden agenda. I underscore this once again the real problem lies in economies that impose excessive consumption and policies that support consumer societies against productive societies.