Conservation can help, but if you don't combine conservation with a strong program to reduce the population, you end up building a system that can support an additional population increase--until you hit a new, higher demand limit.
If we look at Europe today we have a underlaying population decrease (offset by immigration), despite record levels of potential population support. The dynamics are not as simple as Malthus imagined.
My take is that at this time it is well established that a child normally survives and can reproduce. That means you need one to carry on two families traditions, and one in reserve. Coupled with good access to birth control, and record long schooling / problems with getting established on the job market has pushed the age of first childbirth so high that even getting children gets problematic for biological reasons. Then you also need coupling to accur in the right time interval. So not everybody gets their statistically desired 2 children, thus putting reproduction rates below break even.
Europe is on the other side of the population hump. America and Oceania is somewhere on the top. Asia and Africa are still growing, and are projected to grow another 3.5-4 billions together in the next 150 years. If we make it that far populations world wide will probably be in decline. Its a big if, but I would say access to electricity helps. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
The red is net immigration. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Somewhat misleading - East Asia has well below replacement level fertility rates. (China 1.77, South Korea 1.29, Japan, 1.22, Taiwan 1.23) Southeast Asia is varied: Thailand, Vietnam, and Burma have all dropped below; Indonesia's almost there while Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia and the Philippines remain well above. So what we're really talking about here is South Asia and the Arab countries of West Asia (Iran and Turkey are also below replacement level).
