No, it doesn't.

Overpopulation is a non-issue, because it's not population itself which is a problem for sustainability, but rather resource consumption. Which, unsurprisingly, is vastly higher per person in places without an “overpopulation” problem (“developed countries”) than in places “with” one (“undeveloped countries”).

Overpopulation is a way of blaming the rest of the world for the industrialised world's problems.

Thing is we're not going to get people in China or Europe (largest pops) back to agricultural societies of the 1920's. That's not gonna happen. And we're not about to tell people in rural India and rural Africa, sorry, you're too late. You can't aspire to live like us or your rich city dwellers.

So since we would like to have everyone live a "comfortable" life, we'll need to slow the growth so that we have enough to pass around.

Xiao-ping Deng knew the path to growth included slowing pop growth. See China dev vs Indian dev and growth. Costa Rica vs Guatemala, etc.

> Thing is we're not going to get people in China or Europe (largest pops) back to agricultural societies of the 1920's.

This is a silly straw man. Who says we can't reduce our resource usage without destroying modern society? Our massive amounts of waste are not necessary to our way of life.

> And we're not about to tell people in rural India and rural Africa, sorry, you're too late. You can't aspire to live like us or your rich city dwellers.

Except you are saying that, because you're suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to have as many children as they'd like.

>This is a silly straw man. Who says we can't reduce our resource usage without destroying modern society? Our massive amounts of waste are not necessary to our way of life.

Modern society can become more "efficient;" produce less waste per cap. But we can't bring everyone (and their future pop growth) into this lifestyle without enviro impact. We can achieve it if high growth pops reduce growth and we all aim for more efficient lifestyles.

>Except you are saying that, because you're suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to have as many children as they'd like.

Nope. I'm saying like China, they can if they curtail pop growth. Compare the trajectories of China and India.

How do you think China “curtailed population growth”?

The most reliable way to decrease population growth seems to be raising standards of living. Wealthier, more educated people have fewer children.

> China or Europe (largest pops)

Population of China: 1.4 billion

Population of Europe: 0.74 billion

Population of India: 1.3 billion

Europe isn't all that populous. And why compare an aggregation like "Europe" anyway? Tropical Africa is also more populous than Europe is. Southeast Asia is less populous, but not a lot less.

(I meant geo regions with developed econs, India is still in its infancy --its pop is not yet accustomed to near-middle class lifestyles) I think the context makes that clear.

It seems that way but in practice it seems to be an issue.

I mean we're actually doing things like eating all the nice fish in the ocean, chopping down all the Forrest for farm land, then there is the idea that people do need some space to be happen, living in the city is easier when you know you can escape to a secluded place, but that's becoming harder to do.