That is not the case in v1.1, where population effect has been changed to a simple 1 pop = 1 raw production, no inefficiency with high pop.  Roughly half your buildings being pop and the other half manufacturing/science/money seems to be a general break point from my experience in 1.1.

Yes, roughly half your buildings should be farms, with the assumption each food building provides 6 pop and each production building provides 100% (adj bonuses are averaged into this).   Changing averages doesnt change the results much, but might on lower class worlds.  regardless, I would still shoot for this target.  Again, this is only with 1.1, not 1.03.

This is the case in GC3. Having a lower approval results in direct penalties to population growth, raw production, and influence, all the way to -25%, while having 100% approval results in a 25% bonus. In 1.1, this is properly reflected in the tooltips/UI.

Stay tuned, something like this could be coming to your planets in a later release

I'm using 1.03 at the moment. To be honest, I haven't noticed any difficulty keeping morale around 100% from the beginning as long as I research Commerce and Supportive Pop first. The morale issue seems to be a NON-Issue. 

I do love the concept of decreasing population if morale gets too low...say below 33%. If memory serves, didn't "GalCiv2," "MOO2," and even the legendary original "Reach For The Stars" use something similar to this? (Lmao, I think my age is showing.)

Oh BTW, on a class 25 world, I had gotten the pop up to 75 or so, with 100% approval.  that took 4 approval buildings.  Granted, I had several tech related bonuses to supplement the buildings.  I removed all approval buildings, and replace with farms and factories.  I then followed with birthing subsidies (which only took a few turns).  I then had 110 Pop, and I actually had more production being at 23% approval with the 110 pop, than I did with the 75 pop at 100% approval.

Part of this was due to already having another 100% in raw production bonuses due to government techs.  I believe I was getting a -11% due to low approval, so that 36% approval swing affecting raw production didnt matter when I had a +25% in population and even more factories.

75 pop * 1.25 (+100% government and +25% approval bonus) = ~94 production

110 pop * 0.89 (+100% government and -11% approval bonus) = ~98 production

Granted, I had Patriotic to make the lack of approval buildings less impacting, I just find it disturbing that the game allows for a planet with no approval buildings to be more efficient than a planet with approval buildings.  And yes, this is a specific case, but still....I think low approval should have a bigger impact.  The more impact it has, the more impact it will have to the larger-wider empires, letting the game not be a domino effect after you conquer your first enemy.

And this would be an example of playing in a way that does not make morale structures necessary. Skipping Supportive population for some reason, skipping out on the other 'free' approval bonuses from the tech tree, not stacking starbase approval modifiers to ridiculous levels, these are things which can make morale structures relevant. Choosing to pick up the 'free' morale bonuses in the tech tree instead of the alternatives (and I have trouble seeing why you wouldn't choose to take the morale bonuses over the other bonuses) and stacking starbase morale bonuses is a playstyle that makes morale structures largely irrelevant. It is not the only way to play the game.

This is not the correct comparison to be making. The comparison you should be making looks at total output, not planetary production; you are trading population against the output multiplier much more than you are trading it against the production multiplier. The ~5 maximum level farms you probably built to get that 35 additional population could have been another ~5 factories, or you could have built something in between. ~5 maximum tech factories is +3.75 or more to the output multiplier (with maximum tech labs, it's +5 or more to the output multiplier, while with maximum tech markets it's +1.75).

Increasing the output multiplier by 3.75 adds 281.25 output before production modifiers (after production modifiers, it'll be 268.3125 assuming it cost you the same amount of morale as building the farms to get to 110 population did, i.e. roughly 52 morale since you had 75 morale to have 100% approval with 75 population and reduced it to ~23 to have 21% approval for a -11% production multiplier with 110 population). Did adding 35 population to get 4 additional production give you that much? I rather doubt it; you'd require an output multiplier of ~67.1 (i.e. +6710% to the correct output type) before the changes to the planetary improvements were made. Even with a Singlularity Power Plant and a Manufacturing Capital on the planet you're still looking at making up about 61 of the the output multiplier from Industrial Sectors which provide 0.75 each plus 0.05 per level; assuming an average level of 7, you still require about 55 Industrial Sectors to achieve this. And while you can bring the required number of factories down a bit with global manufacturing bonuses from Precursor Nanites, Manufacturing Relics, and techs, and with starbase factory bonuses, I'm somewhat doubtful you can bring it down sufficiently to make this reasonable for a planet with a planet class less than perhaps 40.

I also notice that you appear to have ignored the base production bonus offered by the colony capital (6.25 with a 25% bonus from approval but only 4.45 with a -11% penalty from approval, which greatly reduces the net increase in production since you gained ~4 production at the cost of 1.8 production when you added 35 population). Unless perhaps you're folding the base production bonus into the 'population' of the colony?

Joe, I'm having a little trouble following your response. I am not sure if your lecturing, chastising or agreeing with me. I don't mean that in an a-hole type way. Are you telling me to make different choices, make the game more difficult...or stating you understand why I don't? Please clarify. 

Ironically, I play this game as a "Civ builder", not a "Galaxy conqueror." I'd actually enjoy reasons to build most, if not all, buildings. 

I follow you. I wasn't trying to imply morale is meaningless. I like the suggestions, by the way. I could easily fall into the trap of making the same choices on the tree every time. The game, designed to be thoroughly re-playable, would lose a bit of that characteristic.