I say it's the most important question facing us because I genuinely believe that it is. The answer will shape our collective destiny more than most other issues. So too will the answer to the question: how can the world's economy continue to grow, and how can humanity continue to develop (assuming there is still a need for low-skill labor)?

What's the endgame?

Most of Western Europe has negative population growth rates right now, and there's been no real issue with the economy being in tatters or things we've built being useless. My general viewpoint on kids is to, rather than have one's own, care for some of the ones that are already here and need assistance. We adopted a foster child, and have a biological child as well, and both of them have been rewarding in their own way.

It depends on the person, if you're super into having kids, by all means, have one or two, or if you're super friskey 3. Try not to have 8. If you've been hesitent, don't have any. And a non growing (stable) is a problem, a shrinking population would be a problem. And, let's leave the issue of "OMG, our nation is losing because we don't have all the young people" in 2010. At some point we have to leave national bechmarks for population behind and think about supply issues we will face globally.

I am a great believer in taking lessons from the natural world so that we may live in closer harmony with the planet, and nature has always taught us to have as many strong offspring as possible whilst doing your best to kill off the competition....

....

Sod nature. In all honesty unless we want to get involved in mass sterilization programmes for the third world, or encourage more nations to follow China's example, there's very little we can do but carry on as we are and trust to luck. Free contraception for developing nations may help a little, and we can hope that their economic development will lead to more stable future populations. We're doomed to suffer a huge short term increase whatever happens. Humanity will adapt as always.

Yeah, adapt by dying.

I would agree most with what gramilaj said. There is going to be an overpopulation problem soon in parts of the world. In many areas there are water shortages and the supply will only be stressed more and more. More of the earth is becoming desert, so there is less arable land. All in all, while increases in population may have short-term good effects on the economy, i think a stable population (0 growth rate) is best for long term

rwanda has shown us the way. lol merry xmas.

Overpopulation is less a problem (in most places) than overuse of resources by rich countries and newly industrializing ones. We have an absurd amount of arable land in the US. The problem is each family has two+ cars, wants/has a house that's too big, plasma tv, and other crap that they don't need. Some countries, like India and China, have an overconcentration of population, so it makes sense for them to limit it. But overall world overpopulation is less a problem than overconsumption.

The solution? A planned economy. Anarchy of production will never solve this issue.

Conceptually, a planned economy is great, but somehow humans always seem to be corrupted and mess it up. I agree though that overproduction and overconsumption of resources is a problem (though I am at fault too. I want a big house with some land myself some day)

The problem with a planned economy is that at some level, it comes down to a guy who has no idea what all the cogs in the wheel are. Sure, he has people reporting up to him, but no one person has an idea of how to run something as large as an entire economy, and allocating all the resources to other people to run an economy is a gargantuan task that not even the most brilliant minds are up to. This is, in short, why a national planned economy has never truly succeeded.

I agree 100% Sacred. Conceptually, it could be one of the best things to happen to a country if it succeeds, but the human factor makes sure that it doesn't. Maybe we could build a few supercomputers to run the whole economy for us...but idk how that'd go over with the populace

With advances in technology, the ease of data collection has increased enormously. Part of the problem of previous fully planned economies was inaccurate data. But with accurate data, it should work a lot better. If we have a planning committee made up of finance experts, engineers, statisticians, and economists, it should work. [I believe it largely worked before, it only failed because of disastrous market reforms]

History has shown with a market economy, the forces of the market punish the state whenever the state tries to regulate or reform how the market is run. Market forces will never agree to be regulated to the extent they need to be in order to get out of these long-term problems.

I'm gonna throw this out there at my own risk...but I would posit that humans already have an innate way to deal with population problems.

Homosexuality (not that there's anything wrong with that).

There is evidence that suggests (not proves, of course) that mothers who experience extreme stress during pregnancy (due to overcrowding, perhaps?), give birth to children who tend to be attracted to the same sex, thus limiting offspring. Viola! A built-in solution to overpopulation! :)

Discuss...

Except with in vitro fertilization, surrogates, and 'test tube babies' this goes out the window, since everyone wants to 'experience' childbirth. Also I'd like to see this study you're referencing.

@Putin33 - there is not one study that I am referencing, but tests done on rats in overcrowded and undernourished conditions tend to lead toward homosexuality. Just google homosexuality and overpopulation. I'm not saying there is proof of this, just that there is some evidence that exists that supports this.

Also, in vitro, surrogates, etc is costly and would only be available to the more elite of a population...that is, a small percentage. Those who are actually in overcrowded and undernourished conditions would still be very much subject to this.

If you want to see understand what I mean by problems with negative pop growth, look at the Euro debt crisis, look at Russia's stagnant economy, and look at Japan in about 15 years when their savings dry up.

I can't find this study anywhere. Some vague references to it on forums like this (and on the "museumofhoaxes" website), but no actual citation. If somebody could help me out here, I'd like to see it.

"Also, in vitro, surrogates, etc is costly and would only be available to the more elite of a population...that is, a small percentage. Those who are actually in overcrowded and undernourished conditions would still be very much subject to this."

IVF can be done cheaply and is offered in the developing world at a low price.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25573669/ns/health-pregnancy/

'god's' proof that he loves humans is that there are still babies being born ;-)