Do you have anything to back this up though? My understanding is that too many children is only really an issue in developing countries.

Also, not enough children can be problematic - just look at Japan, which has an aging population and not enough people to work.

Japan has a problem with a declining population. I'm suggesting that we strive to maintain a stable population, not grow it endlessly or allow it to shrink. Both present issues.

Ideally we would have done this when the word was at about 2B, but it's still better to start at 8B than 14B.

The point about Japan is not so much that it has a declining population, but that it has a decline population of working age people.

And my point about the US is the same[0]. Rather than aiming to keep the population size stable, I'd think goals should be around the size of the working age population, and around a level of growth that's required for the US economy to grow.

I do take your point about the number of people on the planet, but I don't think it's really an issue outside of developing nations.

[0] https://eig.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Heartland-Visas-R...

Can't grow perpetually, can you? So why should we try to hit the max before we stabilize?

Basing an economy on an ever-growing population is foolish. We should plan better than that.

I didn't mean to grow in perpetuity; I meant firstly a growth rate that replenishes the working age population, and secondly that makes sense for the size, density and economic state of the country.