Overpopulation exists and is a problem

My interlocutor's reductive definition of 'human pragmatics' as 'technological innovations' creates a straw man of my position. The proposition I was asserting was that that human adaption, problem-solving and ingenuity by a continual, accumulative process, however slow, has devised all the solutions to all our major problems in the past and so is very likely to do so in the future. I fully acknowledge that this is an inductive inference but one I hope to demonstrate as justified. On a purely formal note, may I remind my opponent that whilst the internet today may be viewed as the source of omniscient knowledge, that their sources must be credible and that there is no evidential substitute for good reasoning. Sending commercial images from 'boredpanda' with partisan captions, is not a good backing for his argument. Also reminding them, for I'm sure they know this already, that sources such as the 'National Geographic' have a vested interest in presenting evidence in a certain manner; by citing them, you are citing judgements on global statistics. They may be correct judgements, but you need to accompany them with the statistical support. In some of the sources you use (NOT ALL) you are merely citing opinions to vindicate your own opinions not actually ascertaining any proof. As regards to fishing, microplastics, water pollution, gas and electricity, animal extinction, pollution, deforestation and the inflation of house prices, may I also remind him that there is no necessity by which a large population causes these effects. As an independent variable, a vast population can sustain itself devoid of all of these things. My opposition confuses correlation with causation; you assume matters of social-economy as naturally entailing of a population size. While it of course has affect on the economy, we can perfectly conceive of a vast and multifarious polity thriving without eating fish, producing plastic and over-exploiting the finite natural resources of our planet. We as a society takes so much unnecessarily that of course there are going to be negative repercussions on the environment. Therefore, I reject all of your evidence on the basis that you assumes a modern capitalist system where each individual of the populous consumes products unsustainably to the detriment of the environment. We don't have to consume as much as we do in order to survive with the numbers we possess; in fact, we could consume sustainably if people changed their lifestyles. 'But this is just the way things are!', you angrily retort. 'It would be idealistic to say we could change our ways!' I'd you be right. But, humans are resourceful and will respond to crises with solutions. In 'Discipline and Punish' Foucault writes how 'the plague is met my order' (p197); I say, when natural disasters occur, when great problems arise that affect people directly, these problems will be met with solutions. Yes, this may mean that animals go--and are-- going extinct because this fact doesn't affect people individually and is protected by a social phenomenon of 'collective responsibility' (or ought I say collective irresponsibility). It isn't my fault; it's everyone's fault. Therefore, I won't do anything. But when crises are immanent, people unite to oppose them, devising solutions. Even if billions die either the human race will die out or provides a solution. And, we're still here right now providing support to the latter. The idea is simple; the more humans there are, the more humans there are to solve these problems. But how would these solutions come about? The conditions of society would have to change, due to our societal way of life and not population size, to the extent collective consciousness will be forced into change. We already see some of this consciousness emerging today in environmental awareness organisations and individual beliefs.... but wait, suppose you still don't believe that our societal system over population increase causes all these detrimental factors we see in the world. I would first like to direct your attention towards this chart: http://humanprogress.org... You'll notice how over time population growth decreases in wealthy countries (MEDCs) over time whilst maintaining consistently high in LEDCs like Africa. (to clarify: more and less economically developed countries). In countries where they have less, less contraception, less resources, they have more children. Our rate of population growth has declined; we acknowledge the limited resources in our decisions to have children. Because we have more readily available contraception, because the majority only has children if they can support them and because we know how having children might reduce our quality of life if we cannot financially sustain them, we are having less children than we did 50 years ago. And, global poverty is decreasing. http://povertydata.worldbank.org... Places like Africa, in draught and dearth, don't have the resources to sustain their population; therefore, many die. And, even with humanitarian aid, the various oligarch and corrupt forms of government siphon the resources of the people for their own personal wealth. Economy again gets in the way of multilateral aid and a fair distribution of wealth. Big businesses and dominant power institutes collate all the resources for themselves. Take the American distribution of wealth-- https://www.theguardian.com... If it was evened out, then those in poverty would be able to purchase the available tools they need in order to survive. If we shared all that we had, then there is enough for everyone to be able to survive. Look-- we have enough food. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.worldhunger.org... Do you still believe that there aren't enough resources to sustain global population? Only by virtue of our consumerist distribution of wealth are resources inflating prices, only by virtue that we plunder nature to the extent that we over-exploit the environment, only because we demand the unnecessary, does our population suffer from the issues you have raised. If we were to change how we live, if we only took what we needed to take and not what we needed for profits, then effects of human society would radically change. Our high population is only detrimental when placed in a the avarice of our current economic system. You assume a model of supply and demand, by the way. Take away the demand for unnecessary items and you'll find that the supply left over is copious enough to sustain us all. Yet, suppose you believe that the rising human population necessitates more demand. Even when exponential population growth occurs, which it will continue to do so, when resources are unavailable and disease strife and each of the population has less, it is obvious that necessary demand will never surpass supply. For, the moment it does so, those without the necessary supplies to live will die. You may argue that mankind will never live such ascetic lives as only to consume necessary pleasures, that we are all egoists and capitalism is the only model which applies in practice, to which is the line of reasoning I encourage you to pursue. I agree and this is why I think MEDC's favour a quality of life, wealth, over having lots of children. But, if you do this, I expect expert knowledge on ontology, psychiatry and the human condition. To sum up, in short, I reject your argument because it suggests that humans have to do what we as a society are doing now. Instead, I argue that as a species we can change and adapt ourselves so that we can accommodate a larger and larger population until our supply outweighs our demand. This is not now. I have demonstrated that we are neither overpopulated nor have exhausted all of our resources.