We depopulate it ourselves

I'm not sure.
Definitely not everybody can live as we do-there simply aren't enough resources to sustain that. To me the question is not whether or not we will be globally overpopulated, it's whether or not we are bothered by the gross inequality in resource allocation and standard of living.
I personally couldn't give a damn (not being edgy I just genuinely do not care).

A problem I care more about is overcrowding in cities, mainly because it affects me directly. Having many people in one place is great up to a point, and after that it just gets worse the more people you cram into towers and tiny apartments. Traffic, noise, litter and pollution all get worse with more people. It's not like there isn't room for us all on the earth, but then again why would you settle in the middle of nowhere. I have no solution to this problem.
I'm not sure what my point is here

It's a problem but the only countries that care are developed ones. Africa, south asia, etc just don't give a shit.

Slow, gradual depopulation is a good thing. Having that in developed nations while we send aid to subsidize others having children isn't. Especially because of the boomers and genx. They love the idea of throwing borders open because they've fucked their own futures by buying into pyramid schemes instead of finding methods to actually save money for old age. And beating on the young to take out their anger about their now bleak prospects. History won't be kind to them.

Pull back some of the food, medical, security aid from these perpetually poor countries and see how long they keep adding to the problem. They'll either suffer population collapses or also enter a slow decline.

>>115
Sustainability is a massive problem. I can't wait for this current way of life to come tumbling down. Maybe then children won't be seen as a fashion accessory and people will actually give a shit about the earth. Maybe they'll give a shit about their nation then. But without some form of crisis, a real crisis, fat chance of that happening on a society-wide level.

>>121
Africa and South Asia aren't countries.

>>122
"developed nations" isn't a nation either, it refers to a set of nations. My point still stands.

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/42/wiles.php

Too many niggers and chinks, every day I pray to Ebola-chan.