I doubt anyone's going to paint me as an economic genius, but even I know that the more there is of something, the less people tend to value it.*
Sorry to say, but on this planet, this includes other people.
This is not something I just made up, or desired would happen. I am pointing out what has already happened.
As long as the surface of the planet is finite, as long as many "resources" are also populations of living things, as long as many resources are finite, humans should consider the upper population limit the planet can handle without collapsing.
Many human civilizations, or subsets of them, even plant or animal populations have collapsed over the course of history.
With regard to plants, there is a fancy name for it, the description for a piece of land going from one starkly contrasting look (biome) to another, and it often takes thousands, sometimes millions of years.
But is it really desirable to go from having enough fish to eat, to eating up every fish in the ocean or lakes, so there are none left? Or their numbers dwindle to fewer and fewer each year while the number of humans who want to eat fish grows up and up?
Is it desirable to turn the forests in to memories, then forgotten memories, and go from shade to 100% sun from a clear cut?
I SAY NO!!! to those questions.
Want to hear it from a non-religious source?
The problem is not me, the problem is how to deal with belligerent people who demand to have many babies, how to deal with belligerent NATIONS who consider it their right to have as many offspring as possible, even though it is not within their means to take care of all of them, then cause their population to suffer and/or encourage them to shove off and invade foreign lands. And how to deal with religions who consider it their duty to have as many offspring as possible, or are trying to create huge populations to subdue "democracies."
Like I've linked to often in this essay, read "Collapse" and you can see that throughout history many societies have destroyed themselves from the inside out by overpopulating and its effects, deforestation, making their food sources extinct, etc… The main difference is "back then" they were only destroying themselves and their small part of the world, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that today things are "global" as our leaders "lead"" us to a race to the bottom.
If you don't want to read all of Collapse, just turn to the part about Easter Island: population growth, deforestation, species extinction, grievous infighting, cannibalism, etc…
Walking this path I advise is a narrow prospect. Other books to read: Brave New World, 1 Timothy 4:1-6. Somehow we need to educate and offer incentives to people, not crush them with rules and punishment. I think we also need to recognize we need to be smart and not think of "growth" as the only salvation, because the logical conclusion of always trying to create bigger and bigger populations to support previous generations is the whole point of this essay.
* There is an exception, but it's not a good one. Greed causes folks to create artificial shortages, hide abundance, hoard abundance, and lie about scarcity and value.
The US Government is putting a smaller dollar value on the amount of how they calculate a human life. I am not sure of the reason(s), but I would add that when you hear them, take them with a grain of salt. I haven't read all the details yet, but here are some pointers:
In related news, among my findings is another similar situation in 2003. On the EPA's web site is testimony of a man testifying something to the effect that (some in) the US Government were using spreadsheets to calculate a devaluation of a person/people's life, in order to by-pass laws or regulations.