Mike, your clearly not a biologist and applying speculative science fiction is always interesting but not really usefully.
The biological facts are well summarized
here.
In a nutshell, if you reduce infant and child mortality without reducing the number of children born the population will rapidly outstrip the carrying capacity of the environment. If, as humans have, you use technology to artificially raise the carrying capacity of the environment you make for an increasingly unstable situation that will inevitably lead to a catastrophic crash, either as a result of (or combination of) resource shortage or disease.
Religionists take a disturbing approach, they want to forbid lowering fecundity (birth control and/or abortion) despite the technologically medicated decrease in mortality. The only "good thing" that can be said is that the religionists' opposition to condoms will result in increase mortality (at least in poor countries) and despite the severe suffering that it will create will put off the seemingly inevitable crisis by a bit. But then when you throw into the mix the apocalyptic views of many of the religionists ... their beliefs threaten us all.
So why is it critical to teach evolution in the schools? All this is based on the fact (yes fact) that fecundity rates and mortality rates evolve, that selective pressures in the environment build them into populations, man is almost unique in his use of technology to alter his environment and thus change the effects of these rates. If people don't understand this, or believe that it's all part of a god's (who'll fix it in the nick of time) plan ... then we're all doomed, those of us who know better and those who don't.