In any case, it seems Rosling confuses correlation with causation. Rosling clearly has the relationship backwards. If a country reduces its birthrate then it climbs out of poverty. All of the nations he emphasizes, China, India, Bangladesh and so on emphasized birth control first and became less poor next.

What if a country just receives wealth? Will that alone control its population? Quite the opposite. Saudi Arabia discovered oil in 1938 and established a welfare state. Its population went from 4 million in 1960 to 29 million today.
Have a look at this chart. Stunning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saudi- Arabia-demography.png

Rosling’s plan is a plan to get the developing world’s population to 10 or 15 billion. Eventually a nasty resource limit will be hit and the wealthier nations would have to ditch the poor to feed themselves. An ugly outcome indeed.

What liberals like you Felix always struggle to grasp is that free markets are usually the most merciful. Utopian it is not. Maybe you are too much of an optimist to be an economist.

I put together the web page posted at
http://tinyurl.com/2cpww9z
around 2001; it provides a very brief characterization of the modern method, but is mostly just numbers related to the last apportionment.