Economic democracy is a concept that is way too under-reported. For good reason: It would be better than economic liberalism.

An egalitarian view of natural resources: Since this is a republic and a republic belongs to its people, all natural resources would owned by the people. Therefore basic access to resources (water, oil, electricity, food) should be provided to ALL by independent state-owned enterprises (source). At the same time, food production would be regionalized (farmers markets instead of Walmarts). Countries with state-owned electricity providers (France) and state-owned oil enterprises (Iran, Mexico) pay FAR less than we have to.

Capital and profit sharing. This is the heart of economic democracy. Employees would be the shareholders (source). That would guarantee that they have a say in the future of the company and it would be in their interest to innovate in order to revenues which would increase their wages. Everyone who chooses to do so, could be a consuming producer or a producing consumer.

Social market economy (source): Combining private enterprise with government regulation to establish fair competition, maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, social welfare, and public services, by using state intervention. Such an economy would actively break up and prevent private monopolies, oligopolies and monopolistic competition. 

Equal opportunity: Free Kindergarten-PhD education. The only thing that would change the dreams of students would be their own minds. People would freely choose their own future. Nobody could claim that he/she did not have a chance + we would have a highly flexible workforce that could change professions to adapt to new economic environments. These new environments are caused all the time through growth, recessions, new inventions and even catastrophes. We already a movement that seeks to provide free education to all people. The most famous example is the Wikimedia foundation. In most European countries, students don't pay any tuition. However, their education systems usually don't allow for a career change. The positive side of the US education system is that you can get educated whenever you want. The negative side is the cost. Free K-PhD education would take the best of both worlds.

A government that encourages investments in sustainable development, research and the implementation of modern technology. This could happen through state-owned enterprises or cooperative capitalism where companies work with the government to benefit each other. The government would provide tax incentives and subsidies and thus encourage enterprises to move to e.g. green energy and the companies would help the government to achieve its goal to become more energy-independent. 

As you can hopefully see, economic democracy sounds like a great concept. You might wonder why this is not reality, yet. The answer to that is easy: Most people do not know about economic democracy. The best start to inform yourself about this is the Wikipedia article (Economic democracy) and for those who want to know more, the references provide a huge amount of sources. Another obstacle is the market itself. We cannot enforce economic democracy. The transition would have to be the decision of the company owners and they are not likely to give up their wealth. Who would?

That's why this is an ideology. It is the ideal that will never be reality. However, we can make some of its components  reality in order to improve humankind and the distribution of goods and services.

The people who are most likely to fall for the overpopulation myth are concerned environmentalists. But, especially they should know a lot better that it is not a problem of "overpopulation". Not to mention that population growth has been steadily going down since the 70s and that the average woman has 2.6 children which is just above the replacement rate. On top of that, it's extremely simplistic to assume that our major problems would vanish if we reduced the world population. Nothing could be farther form the truth.

Cornucopians do not deny that a bigger world population could result in new challenges and we are not as naive to think that there is a "one-size fits all" solution to our growing world. Just like many environmentalists, cornucopians are convinced that the problem lies in the wrong distribution of essential goods. The biggest threats to our planet are our habits of consumption. It is clearly impossible to imagine a world where 9.9 billion people want to live and consume in the same wasteful manner Americans do now. It is worth mentioning that the Neo-Malthusians base their worries about overpopulation on the assumption that every person would consume like the average American. But that would require 6 planet earths (source). Unless we do some space mining, this is not going to happen and nobody had such a thing in mind. What is the solution to over-consumption and waste? Sustainable development and living.

Who or what should make sure that we have a more efficient distribution of our limited resources? It should have been the responsibility of private enterprise and governments. However, both fail to do so due to the greed of the little corporate elite that controls multinationals and bribes governments. Those multinationals have revenues of $100 billion per year and higher. If the top multinational companies would be counted as separate countries, they would rank among the wealthiest economies on earth (source)! Yet there is the practice to throw out foods when the value drops in hope that the artificially created scarcity increases the value. So, not only does agribusiness grow monocultures (see picture) that harm the environment, and distort the economy by asking for generous subsidies, they also fail to benefit humankind!

Then there are governments who are ready to spend trillions in favor of corporate welfare. Just to mention one example, the money that goes towards oil subsidies to healthy oil giants would be enough to create a solar power program that would cover 100% of the electricity in the United States (source).

To sum up: We are well possible to provide for 9.9 billion people as long as we begin to use earth's resources in an efficient manner.