From a pragmatic perspective, no, it really doesn't matter what we do.

In time, as with all populations of organisms, we'll reach a population in balance with what the planet can sustain. Thermodynamics doesn't take any prisoners.

This might mean mass starvation in the near future, especially with oil running out. On the other hand, factors like economics may cause a more gradual transition. What we're actually currently seeing is birth rates declining worldwide. Hopefully that'll continue and somewhat dampen the violence of the transition.

But yeah. I don't worry about these things so much. When humans become concerned about nature... I always find that a rather arrogant position. Humans are nothing to the will of nature. If there are too many humans, nature will sort that out by herself.
Quote Originally Posted by Thatperson View Post
Well, in europe people should be encouraged, the native birthrate is sub 2.11 and thus is unsustainable. If we wish to be self sufficient without immigration we should enourage having children in the western world. Perhaps developing countries should place restrictions but that's up to them to decide.

62 million is enough (perhaps even too much) for the UK at least. Maybe a rate of around 1.95 should be aimed for but the current native rate of 1.6 (Last time I checked) is simply too little.
The mistake here is equating population decrease with 'sustainability'.

It could well be the case that there are an excessive number of humans on the planet, so a decrease is in fact the sustainable option.