History definitely supports your conclusion. Considering that only 3% of the world's population control over 90% of the world's wealth, it is a non sequitur to assume that "ordinary US standards" for human today are unsustainable.
You say "non sequitur", but I say that it's quite relevant to consider achieving
US standards for a worldwide population. This would give us an idea of the
level of effects upon our environment if that future awaits us.
- How much land & water would be devoted to farming, fishing, housing, roads, etc?
- How much natural environment loss will we tolerate?
- How densely packed are we willing to live?
- What level of worldwide standard of living is achievable....lower or higher than in Americastan?
When over 90% of the worlds population reach the point where they have no shelter, food, job, clean water, power, or hope, I guarantee that the privilege class will gladly give-up everything they have to survive the fallout. I also guarantee that the "desperate poor" will no longer settle for bare subsistence.
Population control can avoid your nightmare scenario.
Countries should be asking themselves....
Can we really endure an increasing population when
we can't feed or care for the people we now have?
Will we be better off if we have ever more people?
Historically, people have closed their eyes to their own reflection, no matter how clear and simple the image may be. And like history, we seem doomed to repeat it's mistakes. Thank God, I won't be around. Don
We on RF are considering it right now.
Nothing will change because of our discussions, but it's better than having closed eyes.