This is the issue of course.  Growth is good, perhaps such fast growth (without the time to realize the problem and develop solutions) does create problems on the macro-ecological scale.  What created such a fast growth in the last century? 

I know about this. But two questions. Must they be taken totally literally, and must they be taken out of context? By literally I mean: if most couples have a single child, a few have zero, and a few have >1 the net effect will ge a gradually diminishing pop size. This on the one hand constitutes "going forth and multiplying." Must we take it so literally as to mean "make as many babies as you possibly can?

We know there is a tradeoff beween quality parenting (and offspring outcomes) in larger families that have to provide quantity parenting. It is a self-evident axiom. If you have 2 close friends who need your help/guidance/feedback in the next two days, what you will be able to give them will be substantitively different than what you can give them if there are 10 of them who all need some help/guidance/feedback in the next two days. Too many of us lowers our quality.

While I can totally empathize with the spirit of the age-old axioms extolling reproduction, I take issue with them being applied too literally and withoutcontext. Human beings are us, and we are awesome. We belong here, playing the role of steward, and doing what is necessary to promote sustainable human-and-natural ecological dynamics. More of us will always be necessary for the interminable future to play that role. The question is relatively how much more?

I want to argue that we do not need to maintain our numbers at 7billion to the best job for our species and other species. We could very likely do it just as well or better at 3billion or even 990,000,000. Yes, there would be dramatic macroeconomic adjustments to be made, but can't those be made without cataclysm if the transiition to smaller population is suffiencient understood, guided, even controlled and regulated?

Are you a vegetarian? Even if you arent, let us consider how a vegetarian comes about his diet. He says consuming animals is immoral bcz animals have are live. But then arent plants just as live as an animal? Or how about the fact that tons of live pests were exterminated in the process of producing a sanitarily prepared quality tofu burger? Arent those pests live too?

From where I stand, it is visible that a vegetarian comes about his diet where convinience of survival meets with taught values. 

Growth was created by technological advances. Vaccination anyone? Concern that we have grown too fast for our own good is one that assumes that past generations were dumber than present & that future generations will be smarter than us. While that is true overall due to natural selection, this thinking does not apply to the breif pariod of time that is recorded human history. That is much like Bahai religious teaching and is as flawed as that.

Having more siblings is advantagious to having less. While you do make valid points as to quality parenting, parenting is only 1 part of the equasion. A child is brough up by the whole society, not just his parents. In roman times a child came of age when he was 15. Why? Well efficiency of their society demanded that children start producing at an earlier age. Today we can afford him to idle around much longer. At the same time our older people can be productive well into the ages that were considered senile back then. If it is the question of overall productivity of any given individual, a decreasing population will not be detremental to the well being of a society when the produce of a contributing member can feed himself & 2 or more non producing members. That is 3 in the least. Are we at that point?

We have sex not for the sake of creation but for recreation. Children are the side effect. In industrialized societies, young people have more choices than in the 3rd world. Hence they become parents at a later stage in their lives. That gives them less time to creat more children. Fertility goes down with age, while wisedom as to matters of how to prevent unwanted side effects goes up. If the human society is a selfregulating natural phenomenon, then 7 billion of us is not a mistake.

....um, that's not what I meant.  Killing an animal to feed yourself/family is not the same as destroying a habitat and replace it with something else.  Not that I'm against this but I was trying to define the question, "Is it moral to push out others for our benefit?"  There's a difference between the micro and the macro.  I don't think it's immoral, however I think that every effort should be made to limit the macro effects we do create. 

I don't know if that's true to be honest.  Mind you, this is just anectodal to this discussion but it seems pretty universal.  Children with no siblings tend to be a bit spoiled from my observation.  Even at later stages in their lives, the ones I've known, seem to be a bit self centered as well.  On the flip side, the people I've known who have grown up in large families have tended to be much more well rounded.  When you have so many siblings you have to learn early that you are part of a group and not just an individual, and yet because you don't have all the attention on you, you grow up a bit faster.  Perhaps it's a good thing to not have so much one on one time with Mom or Dad.  If there is any problems in our society, it's not that people are growing up too fast.  In fact I think the reverse would be true.   

Come again? If the more educated folks are breeding less than the less educated folks, wouldn't there be a trend towards future generations becoming dumber than present and past generations? And what of the Bahai religious teaching? What, unity? That humanity is advancing on a quest towards truth and harmony? What of it? 

You're still using micro scale.  Macro would be a rainforest like Locus, or even a continent.  A homestead or a park is still pretty small scale.  Do you not think we need to try and conserve the natural environment of places, even as we grow?  Doesn't doing so contribute to our quality of life?