In all due respect, I would like to present my thoughts on this issue.

The most common argument I hear from people who believe that there is a myth being perpetrated regarding overpopulation is that there are plenty of resources to support 7 billion people. This is usually accompanied by a mathematical analysis related to Australia and how many people could be crammed into this one continent.

In my mind, there are really two issues to be addressed here:

1. Are there enough resources on this planet to SUSTAINABLY support 7 billion people?

2. Are there any global effects incurred by supporting 7 billion people which might lead to ecological collapse or other conditions that lessen the carrying capacity of the earth?

In regards to question 1, in principle I do believe that there are enough resources to support humanity as it exists today. Now, more importantly, can it be done in a way that is sustainable? I really don't think it can be. Strip everything down to the basics - food, water and shelter. Food production is energy intensive. We need a high energy density fuel to produce food on our current scale. Moreover, we need very complex industries to support food production. Think about it - we need fertilizers to grow our food, machine parts to keep our tractors running and distribution networks to get the food to market.

So, I imagine that the counter-argument at this point is that centralized food production is the problem, not overpopulation. But, really, do you think that we could grow enough food in a distributed manner to support 7 billion people? What would happen if every household or community saw to its own food production? I will tell you what I think...I think that it would be a disaster because there are so many people living in areas outside of the temperate and tropical zones. These people simply cannot provide for themselves. They need food produced in your backyard! Moreover, you will undoubtedly have large areas that are capable of growing food which are non-productive in certain time periods due to drought or extreme weather. The bottom line to me is that with 7 billion people you simply cannot distribute food production!

Now, question 2 raises a whole separate issue. Regardless of whether we can meet the needs of 7 billion people with our current resources, can we do it in a way that doesn't cause global effects which undermine our ability to meet those needs? Unless we can live in a totally sustainable manner, I don't see how we can keep from having a global impact. Fertilizers wash into our rivers, polluting our waters and oceans. Factories and industries release massive amounts of waste and pollution in the simplest processes of refining metals for use in our basic machines. In addition, everything we do consumes massive amounts of energy, which simply cannot come from any other source than dirty fossil fuels or risky nuclear energy at present if we wish to meet our current demand. Granted, this demand could probably be reduced significantly from its present level while still supporting the population, but there would still be a significant demand that probably could not be met by "clean" alternatives such as solar and wind.

Which leads me to my final point. What if we discover a completely clean source of virtually unlimited power (e.g. fusion, vacuum energy, something else?). Surely, we could support the global population with unlimited power at our disposal? I will grant this one. Yes, we probably could manage some way of doing it without destroying our world. However, there is something else that I have not yet addressed and that is the unstoppable propensity for mankind to reproduce. If and only if man is somehow convinced or forced into closely managing reproduction can unlimited power work. Because without this we would literally be crammed in shoulder to shoulder. All other life would be squeezed out of existence. It is a simple matter of having room for every life form. If we squeeze other life forms out of existence then eventually we will have nothing left in this world. And our own species would soon come to an end as well.

BOTTOM LINE: Humans are at a very strange junction. Totalitarian government and forced sterilization of the people of earth would probably allow us to continue sustaining the population for a long time. I for one do not desire this destiny and see it as repulsive. The only other option is for the collective to somehow spontaneously start living and acting in ways that will allow for sustainable existence on this planet. But, even that will depend on the discovery of a virtually unlimited power source. I have not yet given up hope on either of these two requirements.