Not to argue your decisions, but you might want to take another look at your over-population if that’s a concern.

Yes, we seem to be passing a sustainable level of population and too many people are still held in poverty partly by over-population. However the long term trend is the opposite. By all studies, population will plateau in the next few decades, then start to decrease. While that also sounds good, it looks like it is likely to drop fast. We are more likely to have instability and disruption caused by population falling too rapidly.

If replacement value for a stable population is about 2.1 children per women, most developed countries are already well below that and their populations will drop significantly as older larger generations pass. Was it Korea that hit 1.1? That means cutting their population in half over the space of one generation While I have no idea how to fix the chronic war state between the Koreas, a sudden (in one generation) loss of both population and economy is all too likely to be seen as an opportunity for the war state to turn hot.

Even in the US, we’re a bit protected but our birth rate is well below replacement value. We’re still growing in both population and economy on the strength of immigration. Most countries don’t benefit from that and current politics may impact this and cause us to start shrinking as well. While some is a good thing, a lot of shrinking too quickly can be equally bad as overpopulation. We need to figure out how to stabilize at a reasonable birth rate more like 2.0, to steadily reduce population without disruption