"x= earth population y= available space z= resources a= consumption b= waste produced
There's an equation there somewhere, regardless of what Tim Flannery says....
think for yourselves!"
...................................
The above all true, a finite system.The question is where are we on that continuum between near extinction levels of population and absolute maximum carrying capacity.
As far as actual living space is concerned, the entire world population could fit, four to a house on a 600m2 block, in NSW alone. Throw in Victoria for space for roads, shops, and schools etc. So in those terms the world is hardly overpopulated.
In terms of actual biomass we are not overpopulated either, as we are way outdone by termites, cattle and krill.
Sure there are a lot of people in the world with a low standard of living, but I doubt that is to do with overpopulation, rather it's a result of poor/corrupt/inept government and stupid cultures.
I'll believe that we are overpopulated when every city, town and village worldwide is permacultured and there is still starvation.
There's plenty of room for a few billion more humans, and with a better standard of living too...
Overpopulation...another promotion like the AGW story that deserves a decent kick in the nuts....Malthus got it wrong, and so did Erhlich...still the idea is attractive even if a complete crock. Why it is so attractive as an idea is that it gives a sense of urgency and importance to many people's otherwise meaningless lives. Just like that there are no news broadcasts saying that life is going fine and pretty much the same as yesterday, many seem to enjoy emergencies with big schemes, tax carbon, or limit childbirth etc.
