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! 
help!

The fact that the higher the population, the higher is the resource consumption and the higher is the impact on the environment is a myth that is blown apart by simple data of per capita emmissions of a nation.  
 
It can easily be deduced by referring to international reports of authentic organizations that developed nations such as the US consume far more resources than entire continents put together. 
 
Now i agree to the extent that controlling the number of offsprings is essential for the family to allow itself a good standard of living, but saying that the government will decide how many children a family should have is slightly unfair.  
 
The conditions governing these factors are far too many and complicated to pass a legislation on.  
 
We also need to change the mindset that more people are more a liability on the nation. Why cant the nation invest in every child born and groom him to be an important member of the society so that he can contribute constructively to the development of the nation.  
 
On another note, controlling the number of children one family can have delves into deeper issues like contraception, abortion and family dynamics which are not globally uniform.  
 
Id rather that governments focus on equitable distribution of resources between the social classes and educate people about the advantages of small families rather than legislate on the right number of children.