It is not possible to increasingly populate a finite space without negatively impacting the environment and its resources. The planet is already facing several crises as a result of our consumption behaviours, and increasing the number of individuals engaging in these lifestyles will only cause further harm.

• The Earth is finite; any continuous growth will cross the limit at which the concerned population can survive without damaging and depleting its environment faster than the environment can heal and regenerate. With its present levels of consumption, the human population is already unsustainable in its carbon emissions, disparate land use, depletion of finite raw materials, and increasing demands for high-convenience lifestyles. Introducing more individuals into an unsustainable global system will only place undue pressure on the planet.

• However, it's worth highlighting that these consumption patterns are not uniform across societies. Wealthier nations are generally more likely to observe higher emissions and levels of consumption per household. Interestingly, it has also been predicted that population growth will primarily occur in communities that practice more sustainable lifestyles [http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support]. The current number of human beings on Earth - and maybe even a higher population - could possibly sustain itself if we adopt more environmentally- friendly lifestyles and systems.

But if we stay true to the main message (and tense) in this opinion, given that our food, transport, and energy systems are not wholly environmentally friendly at present, procreation itself has a detrimental impact on the planet.

• It seems easy to think about with more specific picture. Any child born today will, at the bare minimum, contribute carbon dioxide emissions. If this child feeds, they are contributing to the carbon emissions associated with growing and transporting food. Their consumption of plastic products contributes to the waste crisis. Complementing all of this, is the low likelihood that this individual will manage to offset these negative impacts in their lifetime.

Overpopulation is not the issue we are concerned about here. Yes, the global population is predicted to rise further, however, it is misleading to think that the population growth trend that we have seen over the past 250 years is going to continue. The population will reach a new, albeit higher, constant due to increased global GDP (procreation is not limitless). This new higher level is predicted to be sustainable. The fact that it is sustainable admittedly does not mean that it won't have a detrimental effect on the environment. However, it is possible to reach this new population constant and have the impact on the environment be lower that it is currently.
This being said, the single most significant thing that someone can do to reduce their carbon footprint is to have one less child. Therefore if you are interested in reducing your carbon footprint then you should seriously consider having less children or even none at all.
It does not follow that there should be 'limits' imposed. The social implications of introducing a law to impose this are disastrous. In China, the effects of the one child policy were widespread and detrimental to society (for example, the elderly population in China massively outweighs the youth, leaving inadequate care for the elderly).

Limiting procreation will likely lead to reduced carbon emission rates. However, relative to other policies and technologies, procreation does not have nearly as much of a significant impact on the environment to be described as detrimental to the planet.

Of course, having less children will likely lead to a lower net increase in global population which will be beneficial for keeping carbon emission rates down. However, there are a few reasons why policies which limit procreation may not be significantly effective overall:

• According to a 2017 study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, anti-natalist policies would lead to a population size in 2021 that would be similar to today’s levels, which would still mean that the environment is at threat. This led them to concluded that policies and technological developments that aimed to limit resource consumption would have a more significant and immediate impact that limits to procreation.

• Betsy Hartmann, professor emerita of development studies at Hampshire College, Massachusetts, pointed out that there were several countries in the world such as those in sub-Saharan Africa which have some of the globe’s highest birth rates but have the lowest carbon emissions. This led her to conclude that we need to shift the focus away from reproduction and towards more sustainable policies.

Racist roots with a pessimistic view of the future

Thomas Malthus originally came up with the population problems and he came up with it to argue against minorities and immigrants. There are several problems with it but it all stems from one fundamental flaw. Food is also a population so food increases geometrically as well as numerically. It also doesn't take into account new technology and increased efficiency. The other major thing is declining birth rates populations do not grow infinitely we know this from animals. There does appear to be a direct correlation between poverty and populations, poorer families have more children as they are then more likely to survive and do well for themselves. Whereas richer families will invest their time in 1 or 2 children generally speaking. Technology will catch up like it always does by malthus's predictions we'd already be in soylent green territory but this is not the case, humanity will struggle on.