Population growth needs to be controlled

Oh people are dying every day, but the birth rate outweighs the death rate, so yes the population may not be growing as quickly as it could if no one died, but it is indeed growing. People are getting weaker in their immunity and in their natural genetic defences because of the scientific advancements and because most people get health care to prevent natural selection from improving the gene pool, by survival of the fittest. The fact is that if we can meddle in these things which prolong life artificially why should we not also meddle in the creation of life so that we strike the balance nature once had. Lower infant mortality simply means that fewer babies die at birth usually due to better health care but also due to improvements in hygiene and sanitation. One religious argument is "we cannot tell people not to have babies, it is natural and God wouldn't want us to change it" however we are quite able to tell people when they can die or not. Shouldn't this also be God's decision? There is plenty of room if you look at it from a distance; however once you get down to the ground you see that a lot of the land is desert or snow; arid land that cannot be used to grow food, land that would require a huge infrastructure to support life on it. Take for example Las Vegas, built in the desert it takes large amounts of water from the Colorado River, meaning that the river is practically a trickle by the time it reaches its destination. This is what I mean when I say we will run out of water, obviously there is an immense amount of water held in the ice caps and in the sea, but this water isn't drinkable and can't be used to irrigate crops. Precipitation can't always be collected 100% to drink or irrigate crops; it is also not reliable, for the most part. One year may be very wet and the crops grow well, another year it may be too wet, or too dry. If the population grows to a level where we need all the food we can get, we cannot afford these inconsistencies. Not only that we also have forests and large areas of land dedicated to animals, we cannot use this land to live on. The animals of this world also need their space, sure we COULD populate every corner of this world, but would it be worth it after all areas of natural beauty are destroyed? We need not think in country boundaries when we look to see if there is enough space, supposing we could all get along and share the land eventually we would run out of space. What about the space required for the animals most of us like to eat? They need to roam and breed, they need prey or plant life to sustain themselves, which in turn needs space. Perhaps there will always be oil, but what about our environment? If we continue to increase production of cars, production of energy and production of all the products that use oil somewhere in their production line to meet the growing demands of a developing world and a growing population we will pollute huge areas of this planet. Already we are seeing some effects of this – global warming, mixed up seasons etc. Why should we drill in areas of natural beauty, areas we cannot even confirm as containing oil? We need an alternative energy plan, and this plan cannot meet the demands being placed on it now, let alone those that will be placed on it in 10 years time. Turning to food, we can run out of it because we do not have the space to cultivate enough crops to feed everyone. Plants also provide oxygen for us to breathe. But what are we doing when we need more space, or more wood etc. ? We are cutting down trees, we are removing huge areas of dense greenery, we are removing that which helps us breathe, which feeds us and feeds animals which we then eat. How in a world where we populate most of the space are we going to be able to produce enough crops for us to survive? The Earth can't make food on its own, it needs plants. Plants need water and bees for pollination. Yet we are polluting rivers as we don't have anywhere to put our waste, we are killing bees with pollution and cutting their numbers by destroying their habitats to put down more houses and roads. We are killing what we need to survive because we need more space. We could genetically modify foods perhaps, to increase the rate of growth or the vitamin content. But why change what nature has done so far? Also the current push is not towards genetic modification of food, but away from it. This is the wrong direction for a growing population. This level of genetic modification is also so great that it would take years to make sure it works and is safe and sustainable, and we would still need space in which to grow the food and we would need water to feed it. You are correct in saying we will never run out of water, of course we won't. But we may run out of drinkable water. Look at the Ganges, look at the Colorado River. Both have been tapped off along their route until they are not more than a dribble. What about the animals and people down river – do they not need water too? Desalinisation is too expensive to become a viable source of water, many areas are too dry to populate and over farming and over consumption of water is causing land to become arid and thus producing less food. If there were fewer people this problem would be far reduced and perhaps not exist as we could rotate crops and give the land a chance to recover and also allow rivers to continue on their original path and allow them to distribute nutrients downstream to support the plants and wildlife there. I do not wish to get into a debate about God but I will say that throughout the universe there are many billions of planets that are also the correct distance from a star and we are just lucky that life managed to evolve here. There is a high probability of life being elsewhere in the universe too, maybe not as advanced, but life none-the-less. The Bible has enough written in it and enough ambiguities that there will undoubtedly be some coincidences. There are more than enough contradictions and incorrect predictions that we can say that the probability of the Bible correctly predicting the end of the world is almost zero. Throughout history there have been changes in climate (this is the cycle you talk about), and no doubt we are going through one now and it is being called Global Warming. Now this is a natural event but it is being catalysed by us and our love of fossil fuels. If indeed this is a natural climate change then we will soon enter into an ice age, during this period the habitable area of the world will decrease and our large population will work very much against us. We will be in a smaller area, with fewer places to grow crops and with fewer natural resources than before and we will not be able to survive without huge loss of life. A nation should not be founded on the Bible or any other religious book as there is no room for common sense. If your religion is correct and all others are made up, then why can yours not be made up? If your religion is correct and so are all others by virtue of the previous point, then why is yours more correct? Why are they not all manifestations of the same idea, the differences being mostly superficial? This logic and indeed most other logic are thrown out of the window when dealing with religion. Any civilisation based on one religion and living it by the religious text word for word will end in disaster (Middle East anyone? ?). The Earth will be destroyed in a few billion years when the Sun runs out of energy and expands, swallowing up the Earth and Mars before becoming a white dwarf star or similar. Or it will be hit with an asteroid.