https://www.filiapolis.org/en/principles/no_aging_malthusian_catastrophe.php

As a point of interest these are the countries where population is falling with annual rates and projections of total reduction by 2050:

Ukraine: 0.8% natural decrease annually; 28% total population decrease by 2050
Croatia −0.2%; −14%
Germany −0.2%; −9%
Czech Republic −0.1%; −8%
Japan 0%; −21%
Poland 0%; −17%
Slovakia 0%; −12%
Austria 0%; 8% increase
Italy 0%; −5%
Slovenia 0%; −5%
Greece 0%; −4%
Russia: −0.6%; −22%
Belarus −0.6%; −12%
Bulgaria −0.5%; −34%
Latvia −0.5%; −23%
Lithuania −0.4%; −15%
Hungary −0.3%; −11%
Romania −0.2%; −29%
Estonia −0.2%; −23%
Moldova −0.2%; −21%

Regardless, concerns regarding overpopulation are not an acceptable justification to oppose bringing aging under medical control or treating the diseases of aging it is just something else which would have to be addressed.

My personal belief is that when people know that they are going to live for very long time it is highly probable they will take the decision either not to have children at all or to delay having children until late in life which will become possible due to medical progress.

There are several additional factors which must be kept in mind when it comes to population which I have outlined below. These were raised by Tony Reno in some correspondence between us and I consider them to be highly valid and something we should all take on board.

1. People not dying does not add to the population rate. Only people having children adds to the population.
2. The younger people have children, the faster their population grows.
3. The longer people live, the later they start having children.
4. The later people start having children, the less children they tend to have.

Which is why, around the world, the countries with the longest lived populations have slow growth rates (leaving out immigration which is not new people, just people moving) are the ones with the. And the countries with the fastest population growth rates all have short life spans.

Finally, I also point out that any average number of children per couple that is less than 2 is no longer exponential growth, as asymptotic growth to an eventual maximum. Simplest case example, if the average per couple was 1 child, the population would never double, even if no one ever dies.

Finally I point this out. People will often claim that population is a problem, but if population is a problem, then why are the most populous cities also the most expensive to live in? And why are the most highly populated cities e.g London, New York, Tokyo, Singapore etc also the ones which produce the highest incomes? Wouldn’t both of these be false if population was the problem it’s often made out to be?