Someone else has already commented that populations have tended to stabilize quite quickly when childhood mortality drops. Worries about exponential growth always seem to fizzle out within a generation. So I don't think this is a practical concern.
But honestly, quite apart from that, I really think you need to be more alert to the moral and personal implications of your thinking. Even ignoring your use of the word "pest" to refer to human beings (which I'm sure you meant in a joking or ironic way, but is still pretty horrible when you actually stop and consider it), the underlying message of your point here is deeply troubling.
No matter what concerns you may have about population growth, what your point here boils down to is this: even if we have the power to prevent it, you might be willing to leave thousands or millions of mothers and fathers to watch their children die before their eyes. You might consider a respectful visit to look at (say) Eric Meyer's tremendous pain this weekend to get a taste of what your calculation would actually translate to on a human scale.
I know there are hard choices that we face in life, but this isn't one of them. Human overpopulation can be addressed via education and birth control, which I will assert are unquestionably better options than knowingly condemning countless other people to high rates of preventable childhood mortality. Even if those routes were harder and more expensive, they'd still be better. But in fact, as already noted, history has shown that these concerns are self-correcting.
But honestly, quite apart from that, I really think you need to be more alert to the moral and personal implications of your thinking. Even ignoring your use of the word "pest" to refer to human beings (which I'm sure you meant in a joking or ironic way, but is still pretty horrible when you actually stop and consider it), the underlying message of your point here is deeply troubling.
No matter what concerns you may have about population growth, what your point here boils down to is this: even if we have the power to prevent it, you might be willing to leave thousands or millions of mothers and fathers to watch their children die before their eyes. You might consider a respectful visit to look at (say) Eric Meyer's tremendous pain this weekend to get a taste of what your calculation would actually translate to on a human scale.
I know there are hard choices that we face in life, but this isn't one of them. Human overpopulation can be addressed via education and birth control, which I will assert are unquestionably better options than knowingly condemning countless other people to high rates of preventable childhood mortality. Even if those routes were harder and more expensive, they'd still be better. But in fact, as already noted, history has shown that these concerns are self-correcting.