>

Source for any reasonably cited (proxy for acceptance by the field) academic paper in the last decade that suggests that overpopulation is an issue of any kind?
Birth rates are down for sure, but you're making an axiomatic claim that it is because earth is near it's "carrying capacity", which to my understanding is a problem framing that is widely viewed as far out of date.
Birth rates fall fastest in the countries most capable of sustaining their populations, not the least. That suggests very strongly that falling human birth rates in the modern world have nothing to do with overpopulation in an ecological sense.
If what you are implying were true, then there would be a negative correlation between things like starvation rates and population growth rates, but that correlation is positive. Countries with more starvation and lower life expectancies are growing faster.
/u/Salt_Attorney (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Except you’re wrong 
The less money people have , the more kids they crank out .
Look at the inner  cities and rural Appalachia, 
Poor people have a lot of kids 
Unmarried single poor women have lots of kids . 
Middle class married folks have one or two , sometimes three . >

> The less money people have , the more kids they crank out .
Yes and the more money people have, the less kids they have. Statistically. But what you are missing is that here we are talking about money people work for and earn. The less money people earn with their work, the more kids they have, and the more money people earn with their work, the less kids they have. But now imagine a person does not earn any money through work. They simply have free time, and get paid by the governemnt a certain salary for no particular reason. You would see that the more money you give them, the more likely they are to have children. >


You would see that the more money you give them, the more likely they are to have children.

Do you have literally any evidence for that claim? >

Oh yeah .
It’s called welfare queens 
Welfare brood mares etc etc 
All you have to do is crank out a kid and not be married , and the govt hands over a pile of cash every month 
Free housing , section 8
Free healthcare 
Free food 
Free utilities 
Free internet 
Free Obama phones 
Free everything .
Unless she  is married , then you don’t hardly get anything . >

"Oh yeah definitely, source: my ass"
Is not evidence of a claim. >

Well, 
First, I don't think that declining birthrates are a problem on a planet with 8B humans.
But even so, benefits aren't enough to motivate people to have children. If you look at Japan for example, you have one of the most pressured, stressed and depressed society on earth. Who would want to raise kids in a country where kids have to work more than 12h a day just to avoid failing your studies and being considered a looser for life ? 
In their case, even if money wasn't a problem to raise kids, as long as their culture is that stressful and depressing, I don't think that birth-rates will significantly grow.
Add to this eco-anxiety growing worldwide, resources shortages being closer everyday, and I don't think you paint a beautiful future that motivate people to raise kids for. >


First, I don't think that declining birthrates are a problem on a planet with 8B humans.

It is when your greying population doesn't have enough young people to care for them and pay their pensions. >

Well, maybe you (generic you) shouldn't have designed the economy to be a pyramid scheme. >

Is that by design? I can't think of a society in human history which didn't have wealth inequality. >

Of course it is! Wealth inequality is exacerbated by the wealthy to get more wealthy, and that is certainly by the design of the wealthy.
But that's not quite the same thing as a pyramid scheme economy. Endless growth is not inherently necessary to support a population.
Both are features of capitalism. >

Maybe the problem isn't declining birthrates, but a global economic system that only functions in growth mode? We can't keep growing forever and we are already over using the Earth's resources. >

I am talking about specifically declining birthrates independent of the question if a society at a certain level of ressource consumption is fundamentally sustainable or not. >

You should have said you only speak about the hypothetical imaginary world and not our real one. >

That’s not a fair characterization. OP is talking about a specific problem that many people view as a problem and propose solutions for. They are proposing a way of solving the problem, not of restructuring society so that it isn’t a problem anymore. Arguing that it isn’t a real problem does not change whether or not the OP’s solution would have the effects that they are claiming it would. >


OP is talking about a specific problem that many people view as a problem and propose solutions for.

The problem in question cannot be divorced from the world. If the carrying capacity of a country is 10 000 000 people (determined by size, development, wealth, natural resources, hierarchical structures, etc....). And your birth rate has plumetted because you reached the peak with 9.5 million of people. 
Then no matter what short-term policies you implement. If they don't raise the cap on the carrying capacity. Increased birth rates simply won't happen. They reach 10 mil and then they start to oscillate up and down because 10 mil of people is about the maximum capacity you can reach.
OP refuses that argument which is where the discussion end.

OP’s solution would have the effects that they are claiming it would.

No, they won't. Because it doesn't change the fundamental problem that you can't grow forever.