Not even water "shortages" should be able to hinder the natural increase of humans.
Well, with cities and towns becoming more and more numerous, and having so many more people than before, and the gaps in between them increasingly filling with people, water obviously is a growing need. So rivers are becoming less free running, more dammed up by people, people are drilling more wells, and they say that underground aquifers are dropping.
With there getting to be more and more human anuses in the world, naturally populating more densely together, waterways become more easily contaminated with human and animal wastes.
What's the answer to all of that? Nothing at all about that, means people can't go on have their precious darling babies. Humans don't really drink all that much water. And the cost of water treatment quite often is minimal compared to the cost of the infrastructure to deliver the water, so imposing water "conservation" measures are largely irrelevant. But humans use water for many other things, farming, washing cars, washing clothes watering lawns. The answer is to build more dams and water projects, pay attention to the many human needs and wants, build more ocean water desalination plants and the cheap energy facilities needed to power them, and more of the developing countries are going to have to get more serious about people getting indoor flush toilets within their homes and "modernizing" to modern public sanitation sewer systems. (People do have immune systems, so locals quite often can drink filty water and quite often not get sick, while visitors are told not to drink the water but find something cleaner to drink, say like soda.) The old ways of "primitive" living, don't work so well anymore with more countries natually reaching the "tipping point" of flipping from having multiple acres per person, to having multiple people per acre. I figure that India now has 3 people per 2 acres. And I read that the depopulation agenda isn't working so well in India, as there's "population competition" pressure for various rival groups to not allow themselves to become swamped by other multiplying groups of people. But more "modern" convenience living, like how people in the Western world and big cities already pretty much take for granted, works a lot better with such dense and vast human populations as seem to naturally be "engulfing" more and more of the world.
And it's not even necessary to have all the answers first. As we find human populations naturally spreading, and naturally densifying, quite often what needs to be done to better ACCOMODATE so many people, becomes increasingly apparent. As people naturally grow more numerous, any nearby river or undergroud aquifer, becomes the rather "obvious" source of water. Population already tends to much cluster along coastal areas, and those areas at least have access to ocean water, which can be desalinated, if they have money or some industry (i.e. oil in Saudi Arabia) by which to pay for the water treatments.
It shouldn't be surprising, that parents yearning for babies, are going to have a "disconnect" between water "shortages" and having more babies. Parents don't need shoddy excuses to deny them their God-given children, but rather, humans are highly ADAPTABLE, so that should be seen as a strength, and so we should pronatalistally be exploring, at least somewhat, how we may indeed deliberately populate the planet denser and denser with people, for the sakes of our own progeny, and for the good of the many.
Also, I think that more remote wilderness forest fires should be left to nature, free to grow in size naturally during droughts, free to burn mostly unchallenged during the Spring, some hanging over to become summertime wildfires that more quickly then spread, or soon fizzle on their own with the fickle weather, to cut down on excessive firefighting costs and concentrate firefighting resources to more populated areas where they are more needed. But with people coming to live seemingly "everywhere," there's less and less "wild" places where nature can "do its thing," and I welcome natural human population growth to eventually and gradually displace some of the "wild" places where wildfires are left to "run their course," like up in unpopulated Alaska or northern Canada or Siberia, and even the wilderness eventually becomes less "wild" and more "tamed" by humans. With more population forests get fragmented, firebreaks/roads/freeways and such are added. It takes a vaster and denser world population, to make "taming" more of nature, more cost-effective and beneficial to humans.
