No, I don't think so

They're already uncontrollable. Plus, cures of diseases don't make it all over the world. Specifically, they don't make it into the most overpopulated areas.

No, I think it would actually have the opposite effect. History has shown that human beings are the only organism that reproduce *more* in times of want/disease and *less* in times of good health and prosperity. Every other animal group sees a decline in reporductive rates when overpopulation and health issues become a problem, but we behave contrary-wise. The healthier humans are, the wealthier they will be because they'll be able to work more. The more efficiently they work, the more time and money they'll have for leisure activities and education. The better educated they are, the fewer children they'll have. That's how the pattern has always been.

A Chance to get out of Control? The only way the human Pop. could get anymore out of control is if we were still Roman and had Communal Orgies. ( Which might not be such a bad idea) And As for the Rate of reproduction the only thing it has done is increase with food supply, the more food the more people, no exception, the only thing that prevents us from outright enviromental collapse is the infections and diseases that man has always attempted to cure.
*Read Ishmael*

No, although it is a contribution, it is not the primary problem. What is probably more significant when I look in my back yard are religious belief( birth control), machismo(more children a sign of virility)and emphasis on large families as a characteristic in the families that often can least afford them (Many reasons for this-economic, political,education,"cultural family values" etc.). Good Question!

I may be sick in my thinking but I think we need to have disease and wars and such to keep the population at a place where the Earth can support us. If we were to find a way to save everyone that dies from cancer, aids, and other big diseases then that adds a lot to the population. I am not saying this because I haven't lost anyone to cancer or such. I have lost a couple close family members but I think it is part of life and shouldn't be taken away.

Pfft. It patently wouldn't work to let every sick person die. You'd be looking at complete sociological collapse. The only really viable thing we can do(and by far the most ethicaly sound thing), is to lower the birth rate. Drasticaly, across the globe. This is unimaginably important. But it'd also be very, very hard to do.

Ohlefty, your pattern doesn't apply to anything like the majority of people, I'm afraid. You're considering the leaves without bothering to look at the tree. I love vaugly-Bhuddist crap metaphor.

We already live in an aging society. The fact that we're now living longer means that there is more demmands on pension funds, so much so that raising the retirement age to 70 has already been discussed in the UK. This will have a major impact new people coming into the job market and career progression for those employed.

I think we have disease anyway....it would just be something else.....excuse me would have.....

Places with the best health care are the places with the lowest population growth and vice-versa. Disease strikes populations that breed like rodents the hardest--yeah disease!