My conclusion after reviewing the pages of evidence:
The evidence is clear, the science is clear: there is not a current threat to mankind's extinction due to overpopulation, nor is there any evidence for a future threat.
Want to hear more smart people explain why this is??
Like I said, I don't really care if it is considered an overpopulation problem or a problem of overusing the planet's resources. There are physical limits on how many people can live on this planet, and simply feed them, let alone all the other resources humans use. One estimate was we could feed 10 billion, if all arable land was converted to (vegetarian) food production (we can support 10 billion, if all were vegetarian). It is you (and others) that seem to have a problem with science and facts, unless you feel the law of physics, or depending on the earth's ecosystem doesn't apply to us somehow. There have also been a number of policy reports discussing our resource scarcity is actually the underlying cause of a number of human conflicts and civil war. Our and other countries have written policy reports on the impact of climate change on our national security, as it will reduce arable land and cause migration of people from those areas.
(edited to add a more recent discussion of this problem)
And, maybe you should read the rebuttal letters of the editorial that you posted, that pointed out the bias and shortcomings of the opinion piece. Myself, rather get my science from peer reviewed and consensus papers.
Care to share any of those peer reviewed papers that deny my claim?? As opposed to linking to 5th grade level summaries that lack any evidence?
I'd be happy to. The question was whether the amount of humans on this planet and the amount of resources we are currently consuming, is a problem. Any one species (including humans), is dependent on ecosytem to survive. One way to frame this question is in terms of ecological "carrying capacity". A species is considered to go beyond it's carrying capacity, when natural resources are used at a faster rate than they can be replenished or restored. So, if humans have gone past carrying capacity, one would see evidence of resources being used faster than they can be replenished. Some examples of this are fresh drinking water, fisheries, forestation of the earth, habitable land, carbon cycle balance, and inability for pollution etc to be absorbed.
Some people believe that the normal rules for other animals should not apply to humans, because of tool use and technology, we can use those things to increase our carrying capacity. And we have! However the ways that we have manipulated the environment, by increasing our energy production, crop and fisheries, has had unintended consequences, which ultimately degrade and reduce the carrying capacity of that ecosystem. Even if we are able to game the system, we cannot avoid physics and the basic fact all of us, depend on this earth for our water, air, food, and shelter. Paraphrasing Jared Diamond, when a society collapses the rich have the privilege of starving last.
I'm using a lot of science daily, because it is a synopsis of a peer reviewed paper, with the citation if you want to read the original article.
Here's the scientific consensus report on climate changehttp://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151012181037.htm
overview of marine fishery collapsehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151029150250.htm
(this is for atlantic cod, can also search under tuna, shark, salmon, for additional examples)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150720133252.htm
(acidification's effect of the base of ocean food chain)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225151839.htm
There are many articles on chemicals created by human activity (manufacturing, mining etc) that are accumulating in ground or water that are not easily removed. I'm sure you have heard of the chemicals that mimic hormones and altering fresh water fishes. Here is discussion of decline of amphibians globally due to a variety of factorshttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/02/000222064857.htm
accumulation of chemicals even in deep sea fishhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080609155135.htm
I can find more examples, introduction of nonnative species, the honeybee collapse, (another unintended consequence of beneficial technology (pesticides) that is now biting us in the butt. Nature is extremely complex, and sometimes we cannot predict the consequences of our actions until they have occurred.
Need to get back to work.