For better or worse, there are people making policy decisions and I know of no reason why that would change on the time scales we're working with.

At the moment, these decision makers are acting as though they believe:

• Overpopulation is not related to environmental degradation, violent conflict, and resource depletion.

• That technological progress is not the main risk mitigator against overpopulation and its various consequences.

Supposing the above conventional wisdom is incorrect, but either way policy makers will make policy, and if that is inherently a bad thing (strong assumption), isn't it better to limit the damage by them having a better approximation of reality?

So, if you agree with the conventional view, you have nothing to worry about (but I have yet to see here convincing arguments why I should agree with this view if I don't already). If you disagree with the conventional view, that has implications at the very least for allowing its public apologists to stand un-debated and for whichpublic policies and charitable activities you endorse. If you are undecided, then perhaps you're curious to develop better estimates, because they may have bearing on your survival and prosperity. I know I am.