[vibrato]

I absolutely agree with you, which is why I would never alter my life creation activities for environmental concerns. If humans wanted to fix our energy issues we could make a serious push (perhaps 5% GDP) towards nuclear technologies.

[toomuchtodo]

I'm not suggesting we remove agency (yours or otherwise), but there are people out there that will accept cash to not have children. Efforts like that should be pursued as long as its entirely voluntary, as not having a child is one of the most impactful actions someone can perform to reduce damage to the planet (we're pushing limits at 7.53 billion people already). Economics is a powerful incentive.

Regarding nuclear, I'm not going to beat a dead horse in this thread.

[magduf]

Long-term, I'd like to see anti-aging therapies really work out so that human lifespans are greatly extended, along with contraception and fertility technologies perfected so that people only have kids when they're really, really ready for them (probably after age 50).

As for nuclear, I'll beat the dead horse: we don't need it (at least fission). We need more renewable power, especially solar, since 1500W/m^3 hits the Earth's surface all day long. We just need to figure out how to make solar panels in a more environmentally-friendly manner (better recycling of their materials, etc.), and deploy them in more places, especially in places where they don't have negative effects, such as on rooftops, over highways, etc.

Then, we need to figure out how to have humans live in a more environmental manner, by increasing density. If most of the population lived at the density of Manhattan or Tokyo, we wouldn't have all these complaints about humans taking up too much land area.

The problems associated with overpopulation can be solved with technology and policy, if we really want to.