The belief that the Earth is overpopulated isn't universally accepted.

I think we have to give up on anything being _universally_ accepted.

Even climate change isn't universally accepted, but it's an unfortunate fact and arguing about the semantics of it for another couple of decades isn't going to help anyone.

If 9/10 scientists agree, then I'm likely to side with them.

And in the case of overpopulation, 9/10 scientists agree.

https://earther.gizmodo.com/is-the-world-really-overpopulate...

Did you actually read the article that you linked to, because 9/10 of them do not say that the Earth is overpopulated. There's a lot of talk about sustainability and climate change (which are real concerns), but none of them say the earth is overpopulated, and instead focus on the overproduction of CO2 by a relatively small percentage of the population.

So what is a real-world implementation of this notion?

From real life: China's one child policy.

From fiction: Dissuading the birth of more than one child, by curbing any benefits heavily (such as maternity leave) or increasing taxes on family homes with more than 3 occupants etc;

there are many ways to dissuade people from having children, and we /do/ have declining birth rates in most of the developed world because of that.

But, if you listen to my nationalistic friends/family, they believe that "[they] shouldn't have to give up having so many children unless $_country also does"

So anything like that needs to be a bit more global, otherwise we have overpopulation in some areas which could lead to a requirement to spread and consume resources from less populated areas, which would potentially have the effect of wiping out nationalities. (hypothetically)

So what would a realistic implementation be? This isn't realistic for most of the developing world, which is growing faster than anywhere else. Who is going to tell subsistence farmers that they can't have bigger families to help them work and stay alive?

This feels like you're suggesting that infinite growth is sustainable.

I mean, surely it's fundamentally understood that we cannot have infinite growth with finite resources. We're already causing mass extinctions.

I sound like a hippie, all I really expect from humanity is a little compassion for the people who we bore. It's an infinitely dull planet we leave behind if we continue this trend, and one that's increasingly hostile to our descendents.

> all I really expect from humanity is a little compassion for the people who we bore

That compassion should extend to not interfering with people's right to reproduce. "We're saving you by not allowing you to have children" sounds incredibly hostile.

Peoples right to reproduce is constrained by all sorts of things already.

I understand you, and agree with you. I'm just searching for a realistic, implementable solution and nobody seems to be able to elaborate.

It's not possible without impeding peoples reproductive autonomy, it can only be slowed or discouraged, and it needs global buy-in.

Similar to how we tax things which we want to curtail use of, some countries might not tax the same thing and it causes an imbalance.

I'm not a politician, I'm an engineer and thus lack a lot of foresight and compassion that might be needed to understand this properly, but if I were responsible I'd probably approach it like this:

Step one: Identify the problem on a global scale, broach the idea with partner countries to enter an introductory treaty to at least acknowledge that we need to slow/reverse human population growth. Make objectives that ensure that our economies do not rely on population growth.

Step two: use the treaty to gain leverage over non-parner countries. Same rules, just acknowledge the problem and set some objectives to ensure that economies aren't tied to growth.

Step three, amend the treaties to slow the increase of the human race, ensure that partner countries bestow penalties on households with more than 2 children. (Additionally: Ensure that single parent households are only having one child, this could cause turmoil otherwise)

Step four, push for the reduction (or removal) of any benefits related to a second child birth, remove any/all income benefits for a second child, increase the benefits for a first child (must be a first child for both parents)

Step five, attempt to promote having a second child in media as a "very selfish" thing to do.

Step six, apply heavy taxes on dwellings more suited to 4 people families, attempt to reduce creation of such dwellings though tax incentives.

Step seven, finally, if everything fails, tax the families of those with more than a single child born after the date where this law is ratified.

None of this seems necessary, because every western nation is undergoing native population decline.

If you really want to help, all you have to do is lobby to support economic development of the places that are the feedstock of western country population sustainment.

Aren't the consequences of China's one child policy a ticking time bomb though? Having significantly more young men than young women and thus many young men unable to start a family sounds like it would lead to political instability.

From what I've read, increased abortion and infanticide rates for females due to a cultural preference for males was the primary cause of the gender imbalance, not the one-child policy. However，the one-child policy may have other negative consequences.

I thought this just caused any young women to be undocumented rather than what is assumed from the statement "one child policy" (i.e. pregnancy termination)

Western countries don't have the incentive to select for men to such a perilous degree. Chinese society is structured so that children take care of their parents in their old age, and men have more earning power to do so. Men have higher-earning careers over here, but the parent's aren't quite so dependent on that.

There's a very strong personal liberty counterargument, but then again overpopulation is dire and density itself also puts pressure on personal liberty.

Become a developed nation and make children a cost vs an economic benefit. You don't even need to be a developed nation, look at Iran if you want an example of how to do it.

A combo of education, women working in the workforce and easily available birth control and birth rates drop below replacement rate naturally, no special laws required.

After learning this, I'm really not worried about overpopulation as an environmental problem. The solutions are relatively easy to achieve compared to something like global warming.