[whack]

Your comment actually got me thinking... By what metric have you decided that a country is overpopulated?

Using the absolute population size? If so, is America far more "overpopulated" compared to every other developed nation? If China were to split up into 20 sovereign nations, would it suddenly stop being overpopulated?

Or perhaps you're using population density? If so, Taiwan, South-Korea and Netherlands must be absolute cesspools to live in, since they all have population densities higher than India's.

Or more likely, you think that a country is overpopulated because it has a lot of poor people? If so, that sounds like a mighty fine circular reasoning. "Why is XYZ so poor? Because they are overpopulated." "What makes you say they are overpopulated? Because they are so poor."

[topmonk]

Alright, maybe you're right about that.

But, what about the rest of it? Do you agree that people breed themselves to the natural edge of starvation? Would it be better to give them the means to have even more kids, perpetuating the cycle, or let them be?

[whack]

It sounds like you're describing a malthusian trap, where providing people with resources would simply lead to higher population and a return to the baseline quality of life? If that were true, we would expect to see poverty and malnutrition remain relatively constant over the past decades. Instead, what we've seen is a dramatic reduction in both poverty and malnutrition, all over the world. At the rate we're going, extreme poverty and malnutrition will both be eradicated within our lifetimes.

Nicholas Kristof actually had a great article on this very topic, which will restore your faith in humanity: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/opinion/sunday/good-news-...