Overpopulation has been a problem for a very long time.  It may surprise some to realize exactly how long.

"We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us... already nature does not sustain us." So wrote Tertullian, an early Christian, back in the 3rd century. At that time, the world population stood at some 200 million. Eighteen centuries on and with 34 times as many people on the planet, the debate continues.

The above quote comes to us from NewScientist.com

The population delusion [excerpt]

23 September 2009 by Alison George

 

THINK of the biggest crowd you've ever been in - perhaps 50,000 in a sports stadium. Just 6 hours from now there will be that many more people in the world, and another 50,000 in the following 6 hours, and on and on... No wonder that the burgeoning human population is often seen as is the single biggest problem facing our world.

There are nearly 7 billion humans alive today, twice as many as there were in 1965, with 75 million more being added each year. UN predictions say there could be an extra 2 to 4 billion of us by 2050. The planet has never experienced anything like it.

Can the world sustain this growing horde? It's a contentious question. While it is clear that the population cannot go on increasing forever, history is littered with dire but failed predictions of famine and death resulting from over-population. Most famously, Thomas Malthus warned more than two centuries ago that population would be held in check by rising mortality. What he failed to anticipate was the ability of newly industrialised societies to support large numbers of people.

So, you see, over population concerns are as old as, well, civilization itself.  The difference today is that we are measuring the capacity of the entire world, or at least the habitable portion.

[...] while the human population is growing in absolute terms, the rate of growth is slowing - from a peak of 2 per cent in the early 1960s to around 1 per cent today. In Japan, Russia and many European countries, women are having so few children that populations are shrinking or will do so soon - an unprecedented state of affairs other than in times of war or plague (see "Days when the world has shrunk"). At the same time, the populations of many of the least developed nations are exploding, with women in some countries giving birth to more than five children on average.

I do not believe we have hit our upper limit as yet, but I do believe we are rapidly approaching that mark.  Technology has always bought us more "capacity".  I'm sure that we have some technological "wiggle room" to grow in to.  But how much?  And at what quality?  Can the developed world support the overpopulation of the undeveloped/under-developed countries?  Do we have the collective wherewithal and the moral imperative to do so?

I would like to think so, believing that if one can prevent suffering and physical harm one is morally obligated to do so.  But even though I would like to think so, I don't believe we will.  Too many believe there are already too many of us.

As with many things in life: We will have to wait to see how the future unfolds.