Just pay attention to the first sentence in the previous paragraph. The solution to badly accelerating overpopulation, therefore, is the achievement of more social POWER of women relative to men. And the way this is accomplished is THROUGH THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN. This is a widely known sociological fact.
Women become equal to men through the power they gain through education. Consequently, & subsequently, the birthrate declines, while the average lifespan rises. And so, the wealth of the country increases, as does the country's ability to further educate and to feed women and children. (This is also why GRAMERCY BANK micro-loans to impoverished women are so successful: Google).
A note: A decline in the birthrate may be analyzed in comparison to a depopulation caused by, e.g., an extensive PLAGUE. In both cases, labourers become more scarce, and so take-home pay rises, and so people buy more commodities, and so the economy booms. Shiny happy people.
(Another note: But wait: One economic problem with this is that wages of the ballooning-millions of poor people OVERSEAS, (greatly augmented by our own terms of exploitation, btw), become much cheaper, relative to the wages of the few-yet-rich workers at home, & so things fall apart again. Unless there are protections in place: A kind of anti-blowback insurance, provided by tarrifs and market regulations, such as were abandoned by NAFTA, Bush and Greenspan).
However, when there is not a big balloon of cheap labourers competing for labour and wages, then the equation works. What equation? Countries prosper when birthrates decline; birthrates decline when women gain equality with men, and women gain equality with men through education, (which costs money, unfortunately).
BUT WAIT! If a society's birthrate decreases relative to other societies, then this leaves the society more vulnerable to being conquered in war by a foreign power! Nevermind the whole wages thing! Well, well, well - are blockhead, might-make-right, abusive men right after all? Is it better to just go sky-highward with births, throw caution to the wind, all helter-skelter, and trust in the Invisible Hand of the market place, (which joins Santa Claus and the Pope in being a Hudsucker proxy for God, the primal male)?!
It's like this: Primitive groups may better prosper when birthrates are high, even if this means a lot of associated infant and female mortality and mortification. Why? Because the whole point of evolution is to expand the population and so the gene pool. Although co-mingling with other groups, instigated by women or men, can also be fun. generally speaking, primitives think that low birthrates and knowledge are for the insufferable, highbrow Liberal Elite...
So the whole idea of educating women is not a natural thing - ?! Not a GOOD in and of itself? Only a recent contrivance by ungodly civilisation?! Yes, that is somewhat true. And somewhat not...
If it were not for the safeguards of civilisations, such as police, tariffs, corporate regulations, international treaties averting WAR, and so forth, then, in the consequent violent anarchy, (sported by MEN, mainly), there would be little evolutionary point in educating women, or decreasing the population, even though the whole lot might be dashed in some mad extinction, which is the natural and absurd exit-strategy provided by evolution, the Trickster.
OK. Remember that point: Civilisation and it's laws and mores are greatly the reason why it is OK for birthrates to go down, and for education to rise. It, like tools, is an evolutionary innovation which we are now in the business of perfecting.
However, not completely. And so...
BUT WAIT AGAIN! "Hundreds of thousands of years ago, (and more likely MILLIONS), our emerging species developed this thing called verbal language!" And then literature. (Both good siblings of math and logic). And when LANGUAGE was exploding on the scene, women learned to get REALLY GOOD at it. Because it helped them hold some power versus the MIGHTY men. (And this had a bit to do with religious beliefs - the faith in "intrinsic values" of WORDS has not only PRACTICAL reinforcers but SPIRITUAL or MYTHICAL/MORAL ones as well).
When women began using language, to argue with, against, or for men, they helped their societies evolve a sense of TRUTH - a world of reason and fairness, and cause and effect, and law and order, (and even superstition), existing in it's own sphere, somewhat independent of human actors, or politicians. It also cross-refernced ideas and possibilities - and PEOPLE politically, (which is why "to associate" has its double meaning). Thus, the invention of modern Justice, law, and regulation, beyond the grunts and barks and slaps and bites of animals. Of the animals we once were.
This was good for groups. It was like the creation of a computer compared to an abacus. It allowed many more degrees of freedom for thought and planning and imagination. It allowed tools and technologies and buildings and defenses to be built better. It allowed safety and spare time. And voting, and so forth. In many cases, it lead to matriarchies, such as in Northern India, where language, etc., would be greatly preserved.
The primitive education of women was a very good thing, for the most part, in our evolution, even as it may have brought birthrates down somewhat. It helped set up the foundations of the rules of civilisations which would further protect, if run properly, the education and political ascent of women.
But then, there is also a danger in taking this thing called "Truth" too seriously. We all know that. Gossip can kill. Intellectuals can start stupid revolutions. Rich people can abuse the Earth. But overall, the education of women was good then, and is even better now - so long as we craft our words and our laws and our actions responsibly. Or else, we only repeat the dastardly history of Adam and Eve.
That is what all conservatives fear.
If civilisation is insane, then the fall continues.
And so that is the story of:
Eve biting the apple.