I think the Zika Virus is a key answer to this question. This virus is pretty much natures way of telling people that there are too many people on this Earth. Women who get the Zika virus have a harder time getting pregnant and if they are pregnant than their child will be born with abnormalities. This will open up the lanes for adoption which I believe would benefit our society more than increasing our overpopulation problem.
Since overpopulation was not specifically defined, I will use the definition from Webster's dictionary, "the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash". While we don't yet have a global population crash, and "quality of life" can be subjective, there is a mountain of scientific evidence showing human caused environmental deterioration. Given this evidence, the question is whether we can reasonably stop environmental damage by means other than lowering the population (eg, reducing consumption), and what quality of life impacts would result from those other means.
To keep this from getting too long I will just mention a few of the environmental problems we currently face, which include:
We are currently undergoing Earth's 6th mass extinction event, which humans are primarily responsible for. Extinction rates are currently about 100 times higher than background extinction rates.
We are losing a large amount of arable (farm-able) land due to human caused environmental damage. Sources of damage including soil salinification and topsoil erosion.
We are causing the atmosphere (troposphere) and Earth's surface to warm due to greenhouse gas emissions (global warming).
Eliminating all these environmental problems requires both a decrease in the global population and economic changes that promote reduced consumption, lower greenhouse gas emissions, better farming practices, and careful planning to limit wildlife impact. If the Earth's population continues to grow to 10+ billion, as current projections predict, economic changes alone are unlikely to be enough to stop, or even slow, some of the above problems. For example, one of the major drivers of the 6th (current) mass extinction event is the destruction of native habitats due to the massive amount of farm land needed to support our huge 7+ billion population. There are a number of steps we can take to decrease the amount of farm land we need, like consuming foods that make more efficient use of the land. However, we also need to feed the 795 million people that currently do not have enough to eat. It is doubtful we can considerably reduce farm land use when we already need to take steps to feed a large malnourished population. While we can and should divert resources to feed those 795 million, the problem of world hunger makes reducing our use of farm land that much harder.
In addition, we are continuously losing a massive amount of farm land due to salinification and topsoil erosion and are likely to lose even more due to the effects of global warming. Even if we all became vegetarians (which some may argue violates the "quality of life" part of overpopulation), we will still need to convert more native habitats to farmland in order to feed our growing population. In doing so we will continue to have a devastating impact on the environment.
The human race is growing rapidly. We have to look at what over population is relative to. For exmple... Are we over populating relative to the planet size? Or are we over populating relative to earths resources? Or are we over populating relative to our own ability to sustain the population in a humane way?
I don't believe we are over populated relative to the planet size- yet
I don't believe we are over populated relative to the planets resources-yet. We have enough for all...Really... If only we were to distribute them more intelligently and efficiently and were not so greedy for profit.
I do think we are incapable... (or perhaps unwilling) to sustain the population with our current socioeconomic model. It needs to be changed to encourage the sustainability of the population..
However... I think less people is better.
We may be overpopulating the earth because based off of my research there are around 8 Billion people living on the earth. I'm pretty sure we were only intended to have around 6 Billion. Based off of the website given above it says that babies are being born way to fast and we were not intended to have that many. Possibly if we continue populating we will become extinct like the dinosaurs, there were dinosaurs everywhere until a asteroid hit and most of them were gone forever. Humans can't stay on the earth it's a matter of time..
Much is not done to address poverty, disease, hunger, pollution and war as many believe that attrition is greatly needed on this so-called "overpopulated" planet. In fact, we have plenty of resources and space for our current population and massive population growth would end if we solved the crucial problems facing different parts of the world. [Funny, this site would not allow me to choose NO]
Much is not done to address poverty, disease, hunger, pollution and war as many believe that attrition is greatly needed on this so-called "overpopulated" planet. In fact, we have plenty of resources and space for our current population and massive population growth would end if we solved the crucial problems facing different parts of the world.