[lazide]

In my experience, they really mean ‘there are too many people in the way of where I want to live’.

It doesn’t even directly have anything to do with resources or productive land, as when you really look at it, those are not usually limited either in any real sense (though might be more expensive than preferred due to relative economic competitiveness!).

[defrost]

In my experience (energy and mineral resource exploration) it means that population growth from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 8 billion today coupled with increased expectations of consumption levels across the globe has come at the expense of vast tracts of unique habitats and the elimination of most species on the planet along with our waste by products threatening our own continued existence at this scale into the future.

For what purpose?

Why is 8 billion 'better' than 2.5 billion, and how many people is too many (or not enough).

There is land left for us to cover over Trantor style, but there is little left in the way of prime habitat, the river mouths and edges have been largely urbanised at the expense of wet marsh filters that keep our petri dish of a planet clean.

[lazide]

Easy to say when you exist and are one of the 8 billion, no?

Are you volunteering to help reduce the population? If so, how exactly?

[defrost]

Educating.

   Total fertility rate (TFR) is lower with longer average education for females, higher GDP per capita, higher contraceptive prevalence rate, and stronger family planning programs.

What exactly are you doing to increase | decrease the human population?

[lazide]

Me? I don’t have a stance one way of the other, so I have the luxury of not having to prove anything.

It’s very convenient!

[defrost]

I don't feel any need to prove increasing population leads to increasing demands on a finite planet, it's readily apparent to anyone that bothers to look.

Why is it that you lack a stance on whether this is a good thing | bad thing?

Serious question.

[lazide]

What’s the point?