One of my common jests is that we are an over consuming over populated society of 7.7 billion people, and we only "need" 2-300 million. So the rest are superfluous, and I have all of their names and addresses.

You imply that a charity for zero population growth was removed and a negative PG charity was added. I see that the NPG charity was created in 1972 and while there was a movement in the 60's that espoused zero growth, I do not see an associated charity. I suppose one may argue that no reliable information exists for population growth, Positive or otherwise. Were we to believe what we are told then the decades of efforts towards zero or negative growth have been a failure. In the mean time, The first world does not voluntarily reproduce its own numbers. Some see this as a benefit, I do not share that perspective.

@CapriKious I don't know about the first world population not reducing it's population. The first world has been using birth control for some time now, and in the US, there is a problem in age distribution through out the wage earner spectrum that could cause problems to social security as there will be to many old people and not enough young ones. Immigration is the only answer to that problem to keep the work force up and that is happening. Many of the countries in South America follow Catholic dogma and don't practice birth control and they have no social security programs, so a large family is what works there. Correct me if I'm wrong.

@jeffy You may well not be wrong in what you say. That the first world is in NPG is obvious. Indeed, the only growth in the population in the US is through immigration from the south. The net flow the last several years is back out of the country, not in. Thx