Fisto:
I believe that there has been a major strawman argument throughout your posts:
Here is your representation of Nic's arguments from post 33:
a. less people is better because there are more resources to be shared
b. we cannot support the people we have now
c. therefore we need to reduce the people we have now.
I believe that this is a more accurate representation of Nic's arguments:
a. less people is better because (among other reasons) there are more resources to be shared
b. we do not do a good job of supporting the people we have now
c. therefore we should do something to address the overpopulation problem in the future
It is a key point that Nic has never suggested killing people off or taking any immediate action to resolve the overpopulation problem in the present. He has simply suggested limiting reproduction to reduce the overpopulation problem in the future.
However, I do believe that there may be a moral issue even there because imposing involuntary limits on reproduction would involve taking away what most people consider to be a basic human right.