Yes, and yes.

In today’s age of medical accomplishments, we are reproducing faster than we are dying off.

People don’t need five kids. Even three kids. Two hundred, and more, years ago, only one or two children lived to a reproductive age. And as we needed more bodies to help with supporting survival interests (food and animal fodder, building homes, etc), it was a better practice.

I am a negative, and zero, population growth supporter and believer. Negative population growth is where you (as a couple) have only one or no children. Zero population growth is where you (as a couple) only have two children, to replace yourselves.

I think the majority of convicts should be sterilized.

I know this is hypocritical with my ‘If it’s not your body, not your choice’ stance, but I truly believe there has to be control over some things.

cut back more like big time

You need to somehow offer incentives to people not to have kids. There is no way to other way to regulate without taking away the basic rights of reproduction.

Not necessarily. Consumption rate, recycle/reuse technology, and social methodology need to be re-evaluated. But it's easier just to say there's too many of us. Who wants to do any actual work to sustain an organized society.

The population is regulated by nature. It doesn't really have anything to do with choice. When there is stress in a given population...potential for rape is higher. Also, when there is famine...more females are born than males. Nature doesn't care. If humans choose not to conceive...we will slowly and surely become irrelevant.

Aaaah but who decides who ???