[lotsofpulp]

> we have enough resources for the population,

How is this calculated? Are there enough resources for 8B people go to Tahiti or equivalent destinations for their honeymoon?

Because that’s where the conflict comes in. There might be enough resources to feed everyone some basic meals everyday, but is there enough for everyone to have their own single family detached house with a yard and a couple personal vehicles? Is there enough to ensure everyone can fly around the world to see their relatives or vacation? Is there enough desirable land for people to move to from their currently undesirable land (due to weather/accessibility/availability of fruits and good food)?

[postingpals]

Liveable necessities like water, food, and housing, that are either wasted on inefficient food production methods or given to rent-seekers (by the economic definition of the term). No one is claiming we are post-scarcity and that everyone can have the standard of living of a millionaire, though I would argue that one having a standard of living like this could take away from other people's standard of living.

Basically my argument, since this thread is quite far down now, is that over-population is not robbing the globe of resources in any amount worth worrying about and therefore population control is not going to solve inequality since it's a distribution problem.

[lotsofpulp]

I would say the irreversible damage being caused from pollution of what we in the developed world would call “modest” lifestyles shows that we are at a limit, at least if people all over the world are aspiring for the single family detached house with a couple personal vehicles lifestyle.

Basically, I’d like to see what quality of life we would have if resources were distributed evenly. I imagine it wouldn’t be acceptable to most people who are used to their spoiled due to the inequality.