However this information has no bearing on the issue of overpopulation. There is a common misconception that overpopulation is related to density. The truth is that the number of people in any given area is irrelevant, however, the amount of resources to sustain the population of any given area is very relevant. Dr. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University is a leading expert on the topic of overpopulation. According to an article he wrote at www.dieoff.org/page27.htm; "if the criterion for overpopulation where based on brute density, one would have to conclude that Africa is "under populated," because it has only 55 people per square mile"(you may refer to the population distribution map-Table A). This further shows how irrelevant true population density is to the problem of overpopulation. .
Overpopulation, ironically enough, is defined by a decrease in annual population growth. To observe this we must look into the population growth trends along with the levels of all major energy sources (fish, grain, fresh water, and electricity) available to us. According to an article by Mark Elsis at http://www.overpopulation.net/, growth rate of earth's human population is declining by 2.1 million each year. In fact Earth reached its population growth peak back in 1987 when 87.01 million people where added to the population (please note the trends on the growth chart-Table B). Our decline is so dramatic, Elsis states; "If we maintain our average of 3 million less people added per year, we will reach zero population growth in 2020 with a peak population of 6.64 billion people". I know it may be difficult to relate evidence of a decline in population growth to over population, but you must understand that reaching 0 population growth is achieved by overpopulation stressing our planets resources. Once we reach 0 population Growth, it won't be long before the human race comes to a finish.
Another view on the population growth problem comes from religious, anti abortion activists.
