[acsinuk (OP)]

Definitely look at which countries are best to live in and why they are so prosperous.  Look at the list
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-of-life
Well, anyone in a third world country would just dream of the heaven of living in any of the top 10.
But they could convert their own country into an equally beautiful place to live in by following the example of these countries by having less than 2 children per family.  Look at the worldometer stats

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ 

Top 10 countries all well below a family size of 2 and everyone is happy.  But look at the problem of those countries with greater than 3 children; no clean water, untarred roads, unhealthy housing, slums, street violence and poverty everywhere all due to over population.

The UN have a clear mandate to improve quality of health and life for all but is ignoring the problem of positive action in family planning which is the primary cause of global warming.

[acsinuk (OP)]

For proof that over population is causing huge catastrophes just look at  South Sudan with 1 million displaced people with 2 opposing armies and 12,000 UN armed peace makers. No one is building permanent housing as just to survive is a full time problem with no time for democratic elections.
What a mess; and the UN is feeding the starving women and children in their refugees camps, where the kids when they grow up will just add to the problem.
Same problem on Congo Rwanda border, Eritrea/ Ethiopia border, Sudan/ Darfur border and in northern Nigeria.   
Trump is revising US aid but the UN must side-line work on world wide epidemics and get  to grips with over population and family planning !! as UN at present is feeding the problem instead of solving it.

[alancalverd]

Population density of South Sudan: 18 people per square kilometer
Population density of UK: 280 people per sq km

Why are the Brits not starving or living in DP camps? How come we are able to freely elect rational governments with an orderly change of power? Clearly nothing to do with population.

[Bored chemist]

UN at present is feeding the problem instead of solving it.

The UN is feeding people.
People are not a problem.
If you think they are then you are a problem; do you plan to solve yourself?

[acsinuk (OP)]

We all want the best for our children this Easter, so why not consider what they can inherit from you as responsible parents.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

If you have just 2 children then they will inherit everything you have including houses which will mean they are become very wealthy.
Please bless your children by reducing family sizes so they can truly inherit a lovely future as this will reduce the need to keep building which is resulting in climate change due to the extra CO2  polluting the atmosphere.

[Wellwisher]

Population density of South Sudan: 18 people per square kilometer
Population density of UK: 280 people per sq km

Why are the Brits not starving or living in DP camps? How come we are able to freely elect rational governments with an orderly change of power? Clearly nothing to do with population.

An array of future problems, for the more developed world, is about to be caused by population control that started  decades ago. China and Japan, which both went along with the premise of population control, now have fewer young people compared to their larger aging elderly population. This means the standard of living for the young will go down because fewer of them will need to provide for even more elderly. This means more taxes.

In the USA, the Social Security system, that supports retired people, was originally self sufficient, where more money was collected, than paid out, allowing interest income to build a nest egg. This was due to population growth.

Now the system is better characterized as a Ponzi scheme, since the money is collected from fewer youth, to support more retired baby boomers, The collection does not remain invested, to grow via interest. It is almost immediately used to pay for today. This is how a Ponzi scheme works. Population control created a Ponzi Scheme.

Less developed Countries, such as many in Africa, have a population boom, but they are unequipped to support this. The advanced countries can support more people, but they were led to have fewer children. If we combine over population in the third world, with the more advanced countries going toward belly up, it does not look good.

If you look at global warming, in very general terms, a warmer earth means more land will be good for agriculture. If every planting zone goes up one level; zone 4 becomes zone 5, millions of more acres can be farmed.  Zone 6 going to zone 7 means longer grow seasons for two crops. While a warmer atmosphere means more fresh water in the atmosphere, since the concentration of water in the atmosphere increases with temperature. We only need to move water around and planting. 

While greenhouse practices, have shown that productivity of food plants; veggies and fruit, increase with CO2 concentration.The rising CO2 and warmer earth is making a global shift that can support more human life. One has to get past the doom and gloom of fake news and those who have naively led the developed world into future population decline disasters. 

In 1979, China famously introduced its controversial one-child policy to try to slow population growth amid concerns over the effect it would have on its plans for economic growth. Today, the China is facing the issue of major declines in birth rates. The Lancet study predicts that China's population will peak at 1.4 billion in four years' time before nearly halving to 732 million by 2100.

Official data showed the country's birth rate had fallen to its lowest level in 70 years in 2019.

Some fear that the country is a "demographic time bomb", which will see a smaller working-age population having to support a bigger, retired population. As one of the world's biggest economies, this would have global ramifications.

Concerns over China's aging population led the government to end the one-child policy in 2015, allowing couples to have two children. But while this sparked a brief increase in birth rates, it failed to reverse the trend long-term.

[alancalverd]

Your assumptions are incorrect. 

In developed countries, the 0 - 20 year old cohort does not contribute to the economy but represents a net drain on tax revenues. The "Working Fraction" of 20 - 60 year olds supports both the under 20's and the over 60's, of which there used to be almost equal numbers, but the continuing increase in life expectancy and increasing cost of end-of-life support  has imposed an increasing burden on the WF.

Decreased birthrate increases the WF and in the long term increases the available per capita natural resources, hence improving life for all. 

Sadly, a warmer earth does not increase the availability of agricultural land. The North Pole region is just floating ice and there is no prospect of cultivable land appearing in Antarctica for the next 500 years. Meanwhile desert areas are increasing and rising sea levels are encroaching on cultivable land in south Asia and most Pacific islands.

The trick is to reduce birth rate to 1 child per female until the population reaches  an indefinitely  sustainable level in any given region. For the UK, this would take about 100 years, during which individual prosperity would increase fivefold. Then return to "replacement" level of about 2.1.

[acsinuk (OP)]

I agree the quicker we can reduce the over population the better; but 2 kids could be more acceptable to most parents although it will take longer to reach the 1 billion that is self sustainable on this planet.
Mothers, please ask your 2 children if they would like a decent inheritance or some extra brothers and sisters before deciding to have a larger family; who will need more housing which results in more global warming.