Conserving resources through controlling population growth is more important than the freedom to have as many children as you want

Yes, and finally this year people start talking about the 'taboo'. I wonder why it took us so long here in Europe, when actually this concerns mostly those we do not care about almost at all. 
 
For the developed world, economic growth first brought decreased mortality rates leading to exponential rise in population. More resources were available, and further growth lead to lower birth rates -cost of bringing up children increased and time scarcity became a problem. On average, the developed world needs more births to ensure the replacement of its population over generations. 
 
Meanwhile, developing countries cannot achieve even short-term economic growth per capita because of their rapid increase in population -and this puts even more pressure on possibilities for long-term growth. For the developing world, mortality rates are also declining now, thanks to advances in medicine rather than to economic growth. But environmental limits to growth threaten to keep the countries underdeveloped, with high birth rates and again increasing mortality. It is unlikely that Africa will follow the same path Europe did, for instance. 
 
China did a smart thing -even though with cruelty- to limit the size of its population. Most importantly, because it allowed it to grow its economy also in per capita terms, delivering over 200 million people from poverty. Besides, one of their main arguments against large caps on its emissions now is that it has already avoided huge amounts of emissions over the past 3 decades (more than all the rest of the world combined) by preventing no less than 400 million births. Figures matter less, but the point is made. 
 
Cynically, in this perspective, conflict is not so bad after all. Killing some millions offsets freedom to give birth to other millions. On the long run, many will get born exposed to conflict, especially in the developing world. The human right to have as many children as you want will be a direct threat to that to life. 
 
I think it all boils down to human rights and the right to life in particular -one of the most sacred ones; not to conserving resources -those are means to make our life possible on Earth, not an end-. And freedoms need to be reasonably and fairly limited when exercising them threatens the freedoms of all.  
 
Eventually, people from the developing countries, hit by climate change and entrenched in long bloody conflict for scarce resources, will overflow to the developed world where there is a need of workforce and adaptation is affordable. There will be increasingly severe clashes in 'North' because of migration, clashes of values and violent ones.  
 
My point is that avoiding excess births in the developing countries (and in the developed ones also, but this is less of a problem there) is necessary for everybody's sake. The problem is how to sell and implement the idea in the South. Dialogue would help! 
 

Dear brothers and Sisters of the world,
The increased population in the third world countries are becoming a serious threat to the world community! Today the world has become very small. The food shortage in one place affects in another part of the world so instantly. The climate plays an important role in the rate of population growth in third world countries. The lack of sufficient knowledge about life and its purpose in a wholesome way, it causes many miseries to the poor and the helpless. They are the people who are the end recievers of environmental sensitivities around the world.
The support of developed countries to the third world poor can also adversely affect, as they produce their children, expecting the government and the world gives them free food and supprting materials. This kind of support to the poor in the third world can bring more complications on the part of the poor and the government of third world. Their citizen gorws irresponsibly, without working hard and enjoying the free food and materials in some or the other way. The developed world should concentrate on bringing work for the third world poor and rehabilitate them through their own work and earning process. Do not help them simply by providing food. But provide work and feed them, with their own hard work and earnings. The WFPs process of work for Food also bring more problems to the poor than it really aims for, creating lazy food aiming citizens rather than ethically hard working communities.