The world's population should be at most 50 million.

[The Grand Nudger]

Couldn't we suggest that we arrange for a less destructive manifestation of affluence, before we float the idea of sterilizing the poors?

I for one never floated the idea of sterilizing poor people.  If I remember correctly, they tried and failed such a policy in India.  China's one-child policy was much more effective, but I'm not even suggesting that's a good idea.  I mentioned that education for girls has been the most effective way to bring population under control, and access to contraception is just as important.

You are discussing population as if it's not a local problem.  Ask people in central Africa, India, and China whether it's a problem.

So let me think.  Whose opinions on such issues should I trust, a population expert's or the random internet guy's?

Realism is not pessimism if there exist reasonable and timely solutions for impending problems.

That you can find malthusian nuts on the internet who are experts in something is entirely unsurprising to me. It doesn't change the fact that the basis for the position is non factual.   

Overpopulation is not a thing unless your only metric is "too many people" full stop- because there aren't "too many people" to eat.  There aren't "too many people" to have water.  There aren't "too many people" to have land.   Our population doesn't grow exponentially, and half of the world's people live under pop replacement rate. The gains we've been making aren't even fertility gains. Fertility has been decreasing ( it's been halved since the 50s). They're survival rate gains.

I think you need to be less credulous of anyone who claims authority or expertise and then lays into some comment on overpop and the carrying cap of the earth that a rando on the internet can competently criticize. What the man is saying, is that half of us could live like the worst few percent of us...if the other half were disappeared..and while that may be true (I doubt it)..assuming it were, it's meaningless..because no one in their right mind would suggest that we disappear half our people so that the remainder can continue to be super-polluters. I say no one in their right mind..mind.

Can there be "too many people" in this local area...because we can't get enough food in here? Sure..but that's not a pop problem, it's a distribution problem. It's not like we -couldn't- get them food and water. We just.....don't..........wanna. Overpop pessimism masks that fact as though starvation (for example) were a necessary consequence of having alot of people in some place - which any large -functioning- city attests to as complete fiction. That's a problem for city planners, not population planners.

The problems we face are not population problems, as convenient as that excuse may be for us.