It seems to me that population is a problem and not a problem at the same time. It depends on the resolution you are looking at the problem. People who are living in more densely populated urban environments might say that population is a problem, especially if they read something about Malthus and the population bomb theories. People who live in more inherently more naturally sustainable striving rural environments believe it is not as much of an issue because they produce food and know how to produce more if needed.  More urban areas are now getting involved in community gardens and growing food on rooftops. It is all about perspectives unless we research. If we do not help people understand this concept, I fear that some extremely ignorant people might think there is a need to reduce populations or create conditions for people to die young or sterilize people. It would be even worse if they were trying to reduce the populations of the people most able to help with our future. Imagine a situation where ultra competition is so extreme that it reduces someone’s fitness in life such that it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, which reduces the likelihood of having children with enormous potential to contribute to a sustainable, striving planet Earth. Everyone on Earth is vital to our sustainable striving future because, in the future, it is about all of us, not just about extreme master manipulating. It is not just about politically motivated profiteering, striving for power, heroteering, or any other extreme mountaineering for extreme greed compulsions. If we have a population problem in various areas, we must do our best to assess, research, identify problems, plan, create potential alternative solutions, and recommend the most acceptable alternative solutions relative to sustainable striving integrative ecogeorelative rationality. At this point in history, the population problem appears to be more a problem with perceptions or confined to places or areas on Earth that are extremely populated or extremely rural. Maybe the Industrial Revolution contributed to creating massive amounts of people in more urban environments, and over time, they lost touch with understanding the bigger picture. I do agree that we must minimize the overfishing problem in our oceans and extremely intensive one-dimensional agriculture techniques that tend to degrade nature and our environment, including the future arable productive capacity of the land because of short-sighted practices. We could move to create more ecogeosystematic planned egg farms from r selected species where we could use nutrients from manure to fertilize our natural resource agricultural fields. All agriculture fields should be part of the duality perspective where, on one hand, those most responsible for working together with nature have the responsibility to work together with the farmer to help guide, advise, plan, and strive for sustainable striving solutions that help keep our relative priorities in perspective and in context with nature (needs of people too). If you look at the Earth and developed land, you can see that there is a huge amount of undeveloped land. To understand the problem closer to reality, we must research and plan an ecogeorelative rationally. We ought to use areas that are more sustainable, striving as training sites to replicate in other suitable areas that need help with an ecogeorelative. We must explore rational solutions for our most urgent population problems that are less stable or are contributing to excess resource depletion, pollution, inefficiencies, irrationality, or any number of externalized costs on those things that matter more relatively speaking. More urban functioning (sometimes hidden in rural areas as camouflage) seem to be devoting much of their energy to profiteering, powerteering, heroteering, ultra competition, excess focus on process, excess focus on perfect legal functioning ( which is out of context with nature and the dynamic resolution functioning of our society), using the law as a tool of subservience and transference, quid pro quo, organizational harvesting and of the creative contributions of people, and putting more focus on maximizing profit at any cost. If we try to transition these perspectives towards a more sustainable and more integrated natural earth striving for an ecologically sustainable context, we will be able to holistically research and plan solutions that adapt in time so we can stay ahead of any potential problems like population. It may not be just the population, and it may be the way we are living or a lack of planning. Prioritizing perspectives on sustainable striving living concepts, research, and planning is paramount; otherwise, we will experience unexpected ”train wrecks” over the horizon. Once we have our well-planned holistic priorities in context with our planet’s priorities and sustainable striving needs, we can get close to a sustainable striving life on Earth. Working together, we will be closer to a more stable, steady state of dynamic equilibrium functioning. As we adapt over time, we can live, learn, and love in comfort, joy, love, and hope while we follow our passions, dreams, and aspirations in context with our broader obligations of higher relative importance.

One way to study the population is to approach it from both directions.  Study areas with extremes on the duality spectrum.  Then, we could understand it from both sides.   I suspect people are not getting enough of nature in areas where procreation is extreme.

World without end…..