and ps the remedy is easy: fewer people. So aiming for the economically minimum safe population reproduction rate of 1,6 instead of the replacement rate of 2,1.

Within more or less a century we'd be back at land-carrying capacity. Guaranteed and with abundant resources and land at our children children’s disposal. The question begs, why do we insist on aiming for the most human deprivation and general misery when we could choose a much safer option? I simply don't understand our species, I chose to have only one kid for that very reason. If millions of others just did the same we'd get there without the need for any politicians' ineffective power games etc.