In much of the developed world the fertility (children per woman) is barely the (slightly over) 2.0 required to sustain the population. Countries where, say, 1.0 children are born per woman is having a rapidly shrinking population, but more seriously a rapidly aging population where a smaller number of working people supports a larger and larger number of elderly.

If a country wanted to have a shrinking population, it would likely want a fertility rate of just below 2. Japan has 1.41 (!) and barely any immigration.

The solution to global population issues is making sure that poor countries with high fertility rate (4-7) are brought down to 2-2.5, something which is already happening very quickly. See e.g. Hans Rosling's famous talks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeXJnOE-1gw

The solution to the low fertility rate is likely hard to change short term (cultural), but comparing countries in europe for example, it seems likely that making children reforms such as subsidized day-care, free higher education etc. would help.

Regardless, current estimates that I've seen point to the population of the Earth stabilizing at around 10 billion. People always say that we can't move from industrial to more sustainable types of farming because our current population levels couldn't be sustained. Where is that cut-off point? 1 billion? Less? I think that point is what all "enlightened" nations should be aiming for in terms of policy — the point where we could all survive comfortably without having to depend on oil-based products just to feed us. (Otherwise, it'll eventually have to happen naturally, and it won't be pretty.)

There isn't a clear distinction between "needs oil" and "sustainable". It's quite likely that there are ways (or ways to be found) to farm very efficiently without ruining the planet. Btw I think the latest prognosis was bumped to 11bn.

Actually lots of the first world population are shrinking or near flatlining.

So, what you propose is basic "you third world guys should be shrinking, not growing".

On the other hand, this first world countries, not the populous third world ones, consume most of resources and fuck the environment more...

On first-world countries and resources: that's beginning to change. Yes, on a per-capita basis, OECD nations (largely the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, NZ, Japan) consume more resources than elsewhere. China's absolutely stunning economic growth over the past 20 years has been accompanied by an equally stunning growth in resource consumption, and the country exceeded the US in CO2 emissions by 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the...

That said, I = P * A * T holds. Environmental impact is a function of population, per-capita affluence (resource consumption), and technology.

What are you talking about? Many countries have gone "first" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline#Decline_by_n...

Right thing to do for what? Whose taxes are going to pay for the massively indebted welfare states of the West or should they default?

They should default. A few years later the investors will be back the same as before.

Apparently Japan is. Now that China and India have "won" that particular game, it doesn't seem worth playing.

I imagine the government will eventually take steps to try to fix this "problem". It's not exactly voluntary.

> No country's going to go first.

Apparently one is.