Over population is also contributing to an inferior gene pool due to the fact that the survival of the fittest has been removed from the equation ever since humanity ceased to be hunters and gatherers.

This is a serious question (what's that pliddlydink sound?) but my solutions are all somewhat fascist.

we have reached peek children on planet earth as our family sizes shrink but longevity is rising so population is rising faster than we can organize ourselves. Still , on the whole, we live moderately better than we did 100 years ago .

Yes. Most of the destruction of our environment is due to overpopulation and the immediate need for natural resources.

Religious persons argue that god commanded Adam to populate and replenish the earth, which is often the conservative justification for increasing population. In reality, our economic system is bsed on an assumption of constant never ending growth in demand, which requires and ever increasing population, which is the unspoken resons why no efforts to control population are made.

As an argument to the spoken or given reason that god commanded the earth be populated, I always suggest that if god were real, it would appear that now that populations have reched a point where we are destroying our environment, that suddenly contraceptives are readily available, which would suggest god is saying "tht's enough... time to slow it down".After all, if god didn't will it, then why do we have it?

I also point out tht there is a big difference between a command given to (supposedly) the first two people ever, and a population of over 7 billion. It would appear the earth is more than "replenished"... so the command has already been (more than) fulfilled.

7 billion people all standing shoulder to shoulder in a tightly packed crowd only occupy about 300 square miles. What we have is a distribution of resources problem (logistics & politics), not overpopulation. What the first world people throw away in daily food waste can feed the rest of the world. People have done the math to prove this.

So: the culprit is obvious: geopolitics.

All that said, while the issues of resource distribution remain unsolved, certain regions of the earth are indeed overpopulated. As others are underpopulated.

Good question. In the 1960s there was a lot of publicity about the ?population bomb? and the need for ZPG (zero population growth). but it died away. How short the human attention span is, and how soon we forget. Overpopulation was a problem and is not the scourge of our planet. It contributes to our greatest problems -- global warming, pollution, wars, stress, ecosystem destruction, et. etc. Evidently most people simply do not want to face that fact.

Don't worry about it. More cadavers for the cockroaches.

Whose planet is it anyway?

Overpopulation was talked about back in the 60s, but nobody figured out how to capitalize on it, besides writing a few books. So the fad died. Global warming is the new fad and has staying power because it is easy to capitalize on by blaming the individual for his impact on the environment. Of course every living thing has an impact on the environment and overpopulation is the real problem. But nobody is going to talk about that because there is no profit in it.

What we need is a good old fashion ground war, no nukes, no drones, just a bunch of barely trained people sent into the field to kill each other.

on a more serious note, to my knowledge the problem countries for population growth are mainly developing countries. What we need is a solid effort into sustainable resources and effective resource usage... that or kill off a large percentage of the global population... either or really.

I agree. What humans are doing is NOT sustainable. We can't keep expanding our population and consuming resources for long. There are some international groups trying to draw attention to the issue, but gov't don't want to hear it. Pity the children. Peace.