Whichever way you cut it, continued expansion of the human population will likely result in our "natural extermination or natural population control" through pollution, disease, genetic defects, reduced life expectancy or all of the above. I'm not trying to suggest a solution to how population control is to work. The most successful model is when the population reacts to their changing circumstances by curtailing their birth rate voluntarily. Western Europe is a perfect example of this, but that is due to the fact that it is already a pretty crowded and polluted place.
A good example is what happened to elephant population since the trade in ivory and other elephant products was banned. In areas where the animals were protected from poaching, the population numbers rose until they destroyed their own habitat and the entire population began starving (low quality of life). Game park management were forced to do annual culls to reduce the population to the point where the survivors had sufficient resources to prosper and not further destroy the environment. Those legitimately protecting the species and managing the population at "sustainable" levels (at a substantial cost) are not permitted to use the animal products to finance their operations and thereby so dilute the black market trade that it would not be worthwhile for poachers to continue their activities. The flip side of the coin is that poachers have almost completely eliminated the populations in other areas inadequately protected due to financial reasons. The result of this mess is that the cost of entry into the protected sanctuaries can be $50-200/day, which means that the overwhelming majority of the world population will be denied access to see these magnificent beasts. Some would rightly say that this is an "elitist" system, started by the elitists who decided that they knew best how to protect the elephants.
Sorry, but I have personally been to India and can assure you that no US city, no matter how squalid, even begins to compare to the indian slums. I live only an hours drive from Detroit and avoid ANY city whenever I can.
I said that NATURE would eliminate the weakest and poorest. It is the way it is. Money can buy better healthcare, a less polluted location where you may be able to drink the well water, or put you in a place where your life is less likely to be ended in a random violent crime.
We tend to live by the law of averages. Provided my employer is not substantially more wasteful that their competitors, they have a level playing field. But then an upset occurs when someone comes in from the outside (like the Japanese), who are less wasteful and suddenly the playing field is less level that before. This has been happening since the 70's and has eroded the manufacturing base before the concept of globalization (corporationism) even got started. The Japanese were taught lean manufacturing by americans, whose "efficient" ideas had been rejected by the entrenched back home.
In my case, every attempt at introducing efficiency from a transportation (pool vehicle) to building concepts has been rejected in favor of the "least capital cost" concepts (ignoring differences in operational cost) to simply maintaining the status quo with regard to vehicle size, even though records show that most trips wth company vehicles have only 1 or 2 people per vehicle. This is the difference between perhaps 22mpg with the vehicles they lease now vs 40mpg with vehicles they could be purchasing. I also stated that since people in the midwest have typically grown up in truck and later SUV owning families, they lack experience in driving smaller vehicles, which they regard as "sissy" vehicles that they would not like to be seen in. By forcing this issue at a corporate level, many people may in fact discover that there is nothing inherently wrong with smaller vehicles and that the pain at the pump is substantially less. And driving many of these vehicles is plain FUN, with light weight, good acceleration, braking and handling. People can be very opiniated without being really informed and it can take exceptional circumstances to create a breakthrough. At the end, when you go home it is still your choice what you want to have in the driveway.
1.When you mention "population control" , I assume that you are speaking of something along the lines of Planned Parenthood? If you are perhaps ,you are not aware that one of the founders of PP was Margaret Sanger,an advocate of Eugenics(the elimination of "inferior races" by abortion.
2 The use of fossil fuels has advanced mankind exponentially since its use became widespread(Think of all the interesting diseases that were prevalent when the horse was the main method of transport.
3. One doesn't have to travel to India to see what "progessive/socialist" models do to a society. Try Detroit.
I am having a hard time understanding your statement about having to " eliminate the weakest and poorest" Could you expand on that?
4 In Relation to Military spending, I am sure that coming from S. Africa you understand what it means to have a strong national defense, or perhaps that is why you are here.
5. If your employer is running such an inefficient business
why don't you make some suggestions as to how to improve,or alternatively, start a new business that is more efficient
6. Some define economics as "The study of the use of scarce resources, with alternative uses".
I would suggest the most efficient/conservative use of fossil fuels are determined by the free market, not command control forms of government. Your thoughts?
Looking forward to your reply.
To add to your packing statement, we forget being over crowded tends to cause depression, illness, fighting and then war. 
