The world is overpopulated.

Clarification of TopicMy opponent has asked in his initial response for a clarification as to the topic being debated. My opponent was correct in his initial assessment of the statement, as pro I will attempt to demonstrate that the world is overpopulated in the sense that: The present demand for food natural resources exceeds the present supply. The present population has reached or has exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet, where carrying capacity is defined as the maximum population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment [1]. This assertion includes the argument that the resources which are essential to support the human population will be exhausted at their present rate of consumption. As this topic is quite vast, I will focus on food supply and the sustainability of humanity's current population. RebuttalsMy opponent has made an opening argument about resources, citing examples related to iron ore and hydrocarbons. Both examples share common arguments, namely that as technology advances, so does our ability to extract unconventional minerals/resources and that as demand forces the price of a resource to increase, previously unviable means of extraction become economically viable. My opponent utilizes an example with a refrigerator to illustrate his point, stating that if one opens their fridge and realizes they will run out of food in a few days, the merely need to go to the store to restock their fridge. Similarly, as we deplete our resources, society simply needs to “restock” their reserves through exploration. This example is flawed because it assumes that the store is an infinite supply of food (the supermarket), implying that resources are also infinite. Crude oil is formed from decaying plants and animals, and the process can take many years (potentially millions [2]). The fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable and thus limited is an established fact that is not the focus of this debate. It is therefore reasonable to state that the present consumption of hydrocarbons is unsustainable because it is a finite resource that will eventually be exhausted. The same logic would apply to other finite resources. My opponent’s argument relating to the economic viability of unconventional resource sources is irrelevant because sustainability does not only apply to economic sustainability, but also sustainability of the resource’s source. Although many resources are renewable and reusable, many of the resources used presently are not. ArgumentsIn order to support human life, a number of things are necessary. The fundamental needs for each human being are a house, healthy food, clean water and proper health care. Additional needs in modern society also include transportation, sustainable income and education. The actions of all members of society also need to be weighed in, and the ability of the planet to mitigate humanity’s impact and continue to support our population is important. Access to Food and WaterAccess to food does not only include the ability for the planet to grow food, but also the ability of the world’s population to obtain food. Presently about one sixth of the world’s population is unable to obtain enough food, 98% of which live in developing countries [3]. Of those in developing countries, 75% survive off marginal lands that are frequented by floods, droughts and other natural disasters [3]. Simply feeding all these people represents an insurmountable cost, and despite decades of efforts, hunger still remains a significant problem that will only worsen. The role of water is also important, as it is both essential to life and agriculture. Changes in climate, be they natural or man-made, pose serious problems for stable food growth. Changes in the hydrological cycle, droughts and glacier loss (which supports 40% of the world’s irrigation) will all impact the world’s food supply [4]. The simple fact that despite decades of attempts by global nations, hunger remains a significant problem is a testament to humanity’s overpopulation. Ecological Footprint and SustainabilityThe other component of this argument is that humanity has exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. As humanity continues to draw resources from the planets, the environment we live in is also impacted. An example of this is a population of wolves, which continues to grow and hunt deer. If the wolves kill more deer than are born, they will eventually run out of food and their population will suffer. Similarly, as humanity continues to draw resources, their supply will diminish. We are already seeing the impacts of this in the form of collapsing fisheries, decreasing forest cover and increasing concentrations of pollutants. The ecological footprint of humanity is a measure of the amount of land that is required to mitigate the actions of one human being. It is estimated that the equivalent of 1.5 earths is necessary to sustain the actions of human beings indefinitely at this present time [5]. In simpler terms, humanity draws resources 50% faster than the planet can naturally resupply them. It is estimated that about 5 billion people can be reasonably supported with the resources currently on our planet [6], and action needs to be taken immediately to avert the inevitable problems that will arise from our present population. Citations[1] Carrying Capacity, definition . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.life123.com...[3] . http://www.wfp.org...[4] . http://www.fao.org...[5] . http://www.footprintnetwork.org...[6] . http://www.marketwatch.com...