Sure, not adding will work... by 2200, maybe 2100. But, if you believe the current panic about the climate, that's far too late. So if you think that the population has to be reduced, and you think that we need action by 2050 at the latest, what is your proposal?
Obviously, "not adding" is good but not sufficient. We need to decrease the population. There are multiple ways to do that (all unpopular): 1) (the obvious) actively kill some people. That would work but most people don't like that option. 2) inactively kill some people - by not trying to feed everyone, not trying to prolong the life of sick people etc. That's also not popular (but would help). 3) forcefully reduce increase by placing limits on numbers of children per person, forced sterilisation etc (also not popular). 4) Just wait; the climate change we've started + the rapid decrease in resources available will at some point force a massive die-off. That seems to be what everyone is going for..
You cannot fix overpopulation while still keeping your empathy and "everyone has a right to life" hats on. There needs to be a decrease and it will have to be ugly and unpleasant. No way around that. It's either survival of the species or the death of humanity. You have to take off the civilized glasses if you actually want to fix the global problem (which is the number of humans inhabiting the planet beyond its sustainable limits).
If we're willing to abandon empathy and kill massive numbers of people, one wonders what the point of us surviving as a species is. Isn't it better to die with our humanity intact, rather than to live on as monsters?
Just so you know, there isn't too many people for the planet. The planet can handle a lot more. What it can't handle is this many people at the US's level of consumption. But not consumption of food of medicine, but of banal shit like driving huge trucks with 10 MPG everywhere instead of using public transport, or overnight shipping for new iphone every year.
The simple solution is to stop consuming like crazy, which can be easily achieved by adding the planet-destroying externalities to price of everything.
If there is no engineering solution coming soon, that is the only peaceful one. Either that or our hand will be forced by mother nature like whole countries start to get wiped off the face of the earth. I assume we will adapt if the change is not fast enough though.
So no proposal, just a dim view of our possible outcome if the overpopulation is not solved. The problem lies in how we view the earth as a personal resource instead of a shared habitat.
Given that our current education system seems to result in a sharp rise of the flat-earthers and the anti-vaxers, spreading it might just do the trick /s
