The idea that the world is overpopulated has always had a ring of eugenics and hypocrisy to me. If Malthusians believed their own rhetoric, as Walter Block notes, the problem would solve itself in Darwinian fashion:
Even its advocates do not take it seriously. If one were seriously worried about overpopulation, the advocate of that view has one option, and that is suicide. The fact that [the opponent in the debate] is still here, talking, arguing, breathing, and living, is contradictory to his stated position. It is further, hypocritical. It is evidence he is not convinced by his own argument. It he were, he has it within his own power to lower the population by at least one.
It is of course true that when people talk about the dangers of overpopulation, they are referring to other people, generally poor and brown people from 3rd world countries. U.S. foreign policy has reflected this truth: when foreign aid is to be given, it is packaged with birth control measures that, when refused by the recipient country, result in the U.S. pulling the funds.
Ironically though, our economy suffers because there are not enough youngins to support the costs of the aging population. In 1975, for every Social Security recipient, there were 8.3 working adults. In 2015, there will be 2.1. This means that every married couple will be supporting not only their own lifestyle, but another person through their taxes. That kind of thing is simply unsustainable. We don’t need less babies, we need more (Let’s hope the people supporting the HHS mandate don’t realize this truth), or we need to cut the hell out of programs for the elderly. Then again, too many old people means that the push for programs involving euthanasia will grow. The finances just don’t add up to be giving the elderly so many benefits. Walter Williams elaborates: