"Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist." 

In my first year at University, in Economics 101, in the third class of the year, a student brought up the issue of overpopulation. Instead of answering the student's question, the professor, (who will remain unnamed,) countered the student with: "I've got news for you. There's no such thing as overpopulation." The professor went on to explain how he heard that "the entire population of the world could stand shoulder to shoulder in Jacksonville, Florida," and how people were once afraid that whale oil would run out, so we made light bulbs instead. Conveniently, he forgot to mention that the world's population could fit in Jacksonville about 20 years ago, but it can't now, (and either way, it's beside the point whether or not the Earth's surface area can fit so many people shoulder to shoulder, because who wants to live shoulder to shoulder 24/7?), and what does whale oil have to do with overpopulation? He never once addressed the issue of population growth and finite space and/or resources. The professor's argument was falicious, but because he was the professor, because he was standing in front of a class of 50+ students, and because he spoke with confidence, all the students nodded as if he'd just said the most sage thing ever.

You've probably been turned off the issue of overpopulation by the alarmists and extremists who want to convince you that we're currently overpopulated and that we should kill off our own species, and I agree, that view is radical, harmful, and doesn't help to address the real problem. If someone wants to euthanize people to reduce the population, why not start with themselves? Sadly, these extremists and radicals have made such stinks of themselves that now anyone who raises the question of overpopulation is viewed as a pro-murder nutcase.

Overpopulation is a future threat, not a current problem. 

The definition of "overpopulated" is subjective. Most people, myself included, define it as a scenario when the number of organisms in a closed system exceed and/or deplete the resources available for their survival. By this definition, humans are not overpopulated. We have more than enough land and food to take care of ourselves. Therefore, what I have written below is NOT from the perspective that we are currently overpopulated, but rather that overpopulation is a future threat due to population growth. People who believe we are currently overpopulated define "overpopulation" as a scenario where a number of organisms places any sort of negative impact on other organisms in a closed system. This is the definition that anti-Mustang organizations use to define free-roaming horses in the US as "overpopulated." I don't hold to this definition. I believe it's flawed because Nature has the ability to adapt. I believe that if we hold our population steady at 10 billion maximum (just like if free-roaming horses were held steady at 30,000), that the environment will adapt and thrive around us. I don't believe we need to reduce our population, but rather our population growth.

POPULATION GROWTH IS THE ISSUE.

Have you stopped to actually think about the issue of human population growth? It's obvious that the global human population is growing, and pretending that it isn't growing won't change anything.

To put it in perspective, a friend and I were watching the Doctor Who episode "The Eleventh Hour," and there's a line where the Doctor says "six billion people live here; is that important?"
My friend piped up and said "seven billion people live here."
I said: "When this aired, there were six billion. That's how fast the population grows."
"The Eleventh Hour" aired in 2010. It was 2019 at the time of my writing this. Can we take a moment to appreciate that the Earth's global population has increased by over a billion in less than a decade?

It's not my aim to be an alarmist, I just want to be realistic. It's easy to deny overpopulation when you live somewhere like the US, Japan, the UK, France, South Korea, etc. where the birth rates are lower than the replacement rates, but travel to sub-Saharan Africa where women give birth to an average of 6-8 surviving babies each. It's estimated that the continent of Africa alone will hold over 6 billion people in less than 50 years from now. Imagine almost the entire current world population living on one continent.

Or look at it this way: If we take our current growth rate of about a billion per decade and extrapolate that out over a few more decades, where will we be? Most people on DA are under 35 years old. Let's pick a round number and assume you're 30. 40 years from now, the global population will hit 11 billion. That's how many people we can feed if we use up every square foot of soil for housing and food production. Forget about wildlife, there'll be hungry people to feed. You'll be 70 years old when that happens. The average human life span is 79-85 years. Unless something changes, you are set to see human starvation on a global scale within your lifetime. Not to be an alarmist, but that's the simple truth of the matter.

Population in the world is currently (2016) growing at a rate of around 1.13% per year. The current average population change is estimated at around 80 million per year. Each year, roughly 20 million people die, and 60 million people are born. Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above. - www.worldometers.info/world-po…

On average, births outnumber deaths by 40,000,000 - 60,000,000 every year. Not only that, but the global population growth rate has been steadily increasing every year. Human population increases at about 1 billion every 9 - 12 years. During the next 30 years, it's estimated that the global human population will increase by over 70%. It's estimated that our population will have more than doubled in the next 70 years. Even with disease, war, famine, natural disasters, etc., our global population continues to grow, so please don't bring up the fact that people die. Of course I know people die. This is in spite of the fact that people die. This massive population increase could very well happen within our lifetimes, and the doubling effect could very well happen within your children's and grandchildren's lifetimes. It will not be a sudden boom. It will be a gradual, exponential increase.

Let me explain: you start with one man and one woman. They have 3 or 4 kids (an average family.) Each one of those four kids grows up and has 4 of their own kids, each one of those kids grows up and has 4 of their own kids, and so on. In 10 generations, even assuming some children will die before they have children of their own or that some grow up to be sterile or choose not to have kids, our original couple will have produced over 500 individuals. 500 people, all from just 2 people. That's what exponential growth is.

Watch this video to help you understand: m.youtube.com/watch?v=IFzc3lGF…

This is what our future could look like unless we do something:

Is this the future you want for your children and grandchildren?

• First, we will run out of housing and food production space. National parks, game reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, and the like will need to be shut down and destroyed so that people will have places to live and grow food. Disease will be difficult to keep under control. We are already seeing antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains throughout the world. 
  
• Next, we will run out of food. Currently, the earth only produces enough food for 10 billion people (Holt-Giménez, Eric, et al. "We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People… and Still Can't End Hunger." Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 36.6 (2012): 595-598.). While we have enough now, what will we do in the next 30 years when our population has increased by 70%? I hate to tell you, but food for 10 billion people is not enough for 11.9 billion. This isn't rocket science. Once all land is used up for either food or housing, we will eventually reach the limit of our food production. People will begin to starve. Food prices will skyrocket, crime will increase, etc.
• Finally, if starvation and disease haven't gotten us first, governments will begin to cull our population. They have already started with unborn humans, calling it "choice," when really, the ones being culled are given no choice at all. The unborn are the easiest to kill off, seeing as they can't fight back or raise their voices in protest. Next, they'll begin to euthanize the elderly, terminally ill, mentally or physically disabled, etc., with or without their permission (I personally suspect they'll call it the families's "choice," if they follow the pattern they've started with abortion.) You and I might be the first victims of the culling of the elderly. Anyone who doesn't currently contribute to society will be considered nothing but a burden.
  

Why are we doing this?

Simply put, because people want babies. Lots of babies. People don't want to adopt, they don't want to limit their sex or even use birth control, they want biological children, and they want them in great abundance. To quote one such person:

"My favorite question about my twins, which I still get, is oh a boy and a girl, you’re done! Thanks for making that decision for me. Nope, we’re not done! I want more lovely babies one day."- A comment on: thekoalamom.com/2013/06/top-te…

It makes no sense. Why do people want MORE MORE MORE? Are their current children not good enough for them?

In many countries, birth control is not easy to obtain, so birth rates are very high in those countries. Many people believe that sex is "healthy," and many religions even believe that married couples are "required" by a deity to have sex. (I can't help but notice that every single one of those religions are patriarchal religions.) There is absolutely nothing "healthy" or "loving" about condemning your children to the life described above just so you can have sex (or outbreed the Muslims or save the white race from extinction or whatever conspiracy theory you want to slap on your sex obsession.) The kindest word that can be used to describe it is "shortsighted."

Many fundamentalist Christians believe that married couples are required to have sex, but this is a lie. According to Scripture, God gives sex as gift, not a command. Read here for more information: unicornarama.deviantart.com/jo…  Some fundamentalist Christians also follow the "Full Quiver Movement," which basically says that because children are a gift from God, then we should try to have as many as we possibly can before we die. They believe that orphans are someone else's problem. Again, this makes no sense. Are their first couple of children not good enough for them? It's like if someone were to give you a gift of a cake or a jar of cookies, so you demand more and more of them until you literally cannot possibly eat another cookie or cake. That's what's known as greed, and, again, is incredibly shortsighted, and, quite frankly, is extremely selfish. Not to mention it's just plain unhealthy for you and your kids. God does NOT tell you to breed like a rabbit. He does, however, tell each and every one of us to use wisdom and discretion in all areas of life (Proverbs 16:16, Ephesians 5:15-16, James 1:5, James 3:17, Proverbs 13:10, Proverbs 19:8, etc.) and yes, that includes baby-making.

Population and per capita GDP are inversely proportional.

GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product, which is how much money is produced in a nation's borders each business year. Per capita GDP is the amount of GDP per person. You can find per capita GDP by dividing GDP by population. Not surprisingly, a nation's per capita GDP (or how much money a person makes) is reduced the larger the population is, and vice versa. The more people a country has, the worse off each person is. Obviously there is a balance, because no people would mean no GDP whatsoever, but it makes sense that a larger population within a certain border reduces the welfare of its citizens.

Below are common excuses offered by overpopulation-deniers:

"But people have been having big families for thousands of years. Why didn't we have this problem in the past?"

Actually, we did, but it didn't really start until the 1950s. Take a look at this chart: blog.dssresearch.com/wp-conten…

It's very interesting how population remained relatively steady up until the 1900s (when it started it increase), and then it skyrocketed in the 1950s. That corresponds with advances in medicine. Penicillin, the first real antibiotic, wasn't discovered until 1928. By the 1950s, significant advances in antibiotics had taken place. Human population used to be kept in check by illness and disease. We have, in effect, killed off our natural predator.

Either we must limit our own population (the problem there is how to do that ethically), or another natural predator will take over, be it starvation, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a virus, or, perhaps most likely, ourselves. Which sounds more pleasant to you? Having a small, healthy family that you can provide for, or having a big family where you don't know if your newborn will survive to four years old?

"The problem isn't overpopulation, it's overcrowding. People should just move to less crowded areas."

And those less crowded areas are...what? National Parks? Farmland? Game reserves? The ocean? (Yes, I've actually heard people suggest we move into the ocean. 'Cuz I'm totally a fish...) Where do we send people when those areas run out? Because they will run out. Remember, global human population increases by 60 million every year, and the planet isn't getting any bigger.

"The reason people are hungry worldwide is because of political reasons, not overpopulation."

Currently, yes, that's true. We produce enough food for 10 billion of us while there are only 7 billion of us, according to "We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People… and Still Can't End Hunger," in the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. While we have enough food now, what will we do in 2036 when our population has increased by 70%? Food for 10 billion people is not enough for 11.9 billion.

According to the World Education Service, “world agriculture produces 17% more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago." This rate of agricultural growth is not fast enough (it needs to be 70%, not 17%), nor is it sustainable. Every day, more natural resources are lost to sustain this tiny growth in agriculture. How do overpopulation deniers hope to increase their rate of agricultural production to 70% without depleting our natural resources or destroying our treasured national parks or game reserves? 

The truth is, they have no explanation and no plan. According to www.pop.org/content/debunking-…, an overpopulation-denial organization, their response to the question of how do we increase our rate of food production without depleting natural resources is this: "There is no reason to think that we are running out of human ingenuity.  If anything, a larger population means more opportunities for the kind of scientific collaboration and increased specialization that results in such scientific leaps forward." Basically, they're just hoping. That's their plan: hope that we'll figure something out. They seem to forget that you need to find a way to feed people before they are born. You don't wait for them to be born, grow up, get educated, and then figure out how to solve their starvation problem. A starving population isn't going to go to school. They're going to fight among themselves to find whatever scraps of food are available. If anything, the rate of food production will decrease.

"So you want everyone to just stop having babies?"

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. If we stopped having children, we would go extinct. That's not a favorable outcome, either! In order to prevent our population from decreasing (which would harm our nations' economies and the global balance), each person should strive to have a maximum of one child (or two per couple.) If a couple wants more children so that they can have a big family, they should adopt, because there will always be unplanned pregnancies and/or parents who pass away leaving orphaned children.

It's not ethical to force anyone to do this. All we can do is educate the world and hope that they'll be responsible. Unfortunately, hoping for responsibility from the majority is almost always a losing battle. I know of no ethical way to enforce population control.

Throughout the world there are more than 153 million orphans. Every day around 5,760 more children become orphans. Once these children reach a certain age (around 16 yrs old) they are released from the institutions to make it on their own without any aid. Most are unable to even make themselves a meal, much less make a decent living. In 2012, more than 23,000 U.S. young people aged out of foster care without permanent families. It's estimated that 14,505,000 orphans worldwide age out of the adoption system every year. Each day, 38,493 orphans age out. Every 2.2 seconds, another orphan ages out with no family to belong to and no place to call home. Research has shown that those who leave care without being linked to forever families are highly likely to experience homelessness, unemployment and incarceration as adults. Studies have shown that 10% – 15% of these children commit suicide before they reach age eighteen. These studies also show that 60% of the girls become prostitutes and 70% of the boys become hardened criminals. An estimated 1.2 million children (both boys and girls) are sex-trafficked every year. The average age of a trafficked victim is 14 years old. These children need homes. How is it good to cause the continuation of their suffering? 
If you are curious, here are some more ways you can help adoptive children: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…

The key word here is reducing population growth, not reducing the population. Remember, we currently have enough food and space. As it is, we're not currently overpopulated, but overpopulation is a very real future threat if we don't get our act together. No one has to die for this to work.

"But God told us to be fruitful and multiply!"

And when did He tell YOU SPECIFICALLY to do that? The truth is, He didn't. That command was only ever given at two points in Biblical history: at Creation (Genesis 1:28 when there were only two humans alive on the entire planet), and after the Flood (Genesis 9:7 when there were only eight humans alive on the entire planet.)

Let's be real, people: We have been fruitful and we have multiplied. There are almost 8 billion of us now. Been there, done that. To bring up an outdated, historical command as "proof" that we are "commanded by God" to harm our planet and ourselves is not only ridiculous and laughable, but it also takes the Lord's name in vain. It is a grievous sin to use God as an excuse to do something harmful. As a Christian, I find this out-of-context and sinful use of God's Word extremely offensive.

If you want to follow every historical command in Scripture, then you must be circumcised and uncircumcised at the same time, you must kill gays and witches, you must stone rapists to death, you must not eat bacon or shellfish, you must not combine various types of thread in your clothes (which basically means you'll have to make your own clothes), women must sit perfectly silent in church, you must not eat goat meat cooked in milk, the list goes on. How many of you actually follow all those commands? The reason you don't follow them is because they were commands given during a specific time to a specific group of people. They are no different from "be fruitful and multiply."

"Everyone should go vegan."

Veganism is great, but it won't solve this particular problem. Yes, it would delay the inevitable for a short time, but give or take a few decades, and we'll be right back where we are now. It doesn't matter that growing plants takes up less space than raising livestock. People will still need to live somewhere, and eventually even plant crops won't be able to sustain everyone.

"Let's colonize other planets."

Sounds like fun and I'm all for it, but unfortunately, our science is nowhere near being able to do anything close to colonizing a planet. We'd need to terra-form another world in less than 70 years, remember. Terra-forming currently exists only in the realms of science fiction. Maybe someday it will be feasible, but right now, it's foolish to rely on it. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

"Are you trying to enforce abortion?"

LOL, of course not! If you've taken the time to browse through my gallery, especially my other stamps, you'll see that I am 100% against abortion (unless the mother's life is in danger, but that's a different can of worms).

There are plenty of non-lethal options available for keeping population growth from exploding out of control. These options include, but are not limited to: birth control, sterilization, sexual restraint, restricting the use of sexual-stimulant drugs, etc.

The key word here is reducing population growth, not reducing the population. No one has to die for this to work.

"Well, you're just anti-family!"

If I had a nickle for every time I heard that...

Anyway, no, I'm not anti-family. It is anti-family, however, to say that a family with one to two children does not qualify as a family. And besides: please tell me exactly how it is anti-family to show a homeless child what love and family is? If you're going to make Ad Hominems against me and tell me that adoption is anti-family, you're going to have to tell exactly how giving a child a home is anti-family.