Why Is Population Growth Seldom Discussed?

[Cassidy]

90. "We haven't had disaster and doom..." Who is included in "we"?

1968–1972 Sahel drought created a famine that killed a million people[85] Mauritania, Mali, Chad, Niger and Burkina Faso
1972–1973 Famine in Ethiopia caused by drought and poor governance; failure of the government to handle this crisis led to the fall of Haile Selassie and to Derg rule Ethiopia 60,000[86]
1974 Bangladesh famine of 1974 Bangladesh 1 million
1975–1979 Khmer Rouge. An estimated 2 million Cambodians lost their lives to murder, forced labor and famine Cambodia
1980–1981 Caused by drought and conflict[86] Uganda 30,000[86]
1984–1985 1984–1985 famine in Ethiopia Ethiopia
1991–1992 Famine in Somalia caused by drought and civil war[86] Somalia 300,000[86]
1996 North Korean famine.[87][88] Scholars estimate 600,000 died of starvation (other estimates range from 200,000 to 3.5 million).[89] North Korea 200,000 to 3.5 million
1998 1998 Sudan famine caused by war and drought Sudan 70,000[86]
1998–2000 Famine in Ethiopia. The situation worsened by Eritrean–Ethiopian War Ethiopia
1998–2004 Second Congo War. 3.8 million people died, mostly from starvation and disease Democratic Republic of the Congo
2011-2012 Famine in Somalia, brought on by the 2011 East Africa drought[90] Somalia
2012 Famine in West Africa, brought on by the 2012 Sahel drought[91] Senegal, Gambia, Niger, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

Would a smaller human population, even in wealthy nations, be more likely to decrease resource use or somehow to increase resource use? I understand there is not a direct correlation between population and resource depletion, because of massive wealth inequalities, but I don't think it is correct to argue that population is not part of the problem. How many extinctions and environmental degradations are acceptable in order to maintain a maximum human population? Is that the correct goal?