The Earth Is Not Overpopulated

I. OvercrowdingSix acres is clearly enough room for a person and the animals inhabiting his surrounding environment to be at peace. The addition of one person into an ecosystem that size is hardly going to be an issue. In addition, consider my other statistic that each person of Earth, if given equal sized plots of land, could have half an acre of arable land. These lands are cultivated and typically devoid of animals in the first place. Not only that, but the average person only requires one acre of farmland if they’re eating the typical American diet to feed themselves, and that’s for normal, healthy adults eating the typical American diet, both of which force that number up. Considering those two forcings, in conjunction with the use of high output greenhouses and other agricultural technology allowing for the production of food without the need for land, the number is probably considerably less than one acre. Thus, that one half acre is enough to feed that person. Also, Antarctica is irrelevant because that land is not arable, and most of Russia isn’t too arable either (although people can still live there). [1]It’s true that humans often live in cities, but, like I’ve mentioned, given the proper planning and development, overcrowding in such areas isn’t going to be a problem either. II. FoodThe main problem with my opponent’s argument here is that humans get the vast majority of their food through agriculture and not by hunting and gathering, meaning that we don’t take away much potential food for animals, as we produce the vast majority of our food ourselves. Of course, there are local instances where mismanaged development took away the food source for animals in that area, but that can be stopped with coordinated effort, and is thus not a symptom of overpopulation. III. WaterWhile most of the water is on is not drinkable without having it go through some sort of process, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t ways to make that water drinkable. I provided a source in round two about efficient ways to melt glaciers. Source two provides some of the proposals put forth for efficient desalination. There are also many other ways we are getting freshwater out of existing reserves. [2]Water is a renewable resource. This means that (assuming there is not so much use that it overcomes the rate of replacement) water always re-enters the environment. The controlled use of water will neither use up the sources of water we have nor will it take away water from animals. As with food, the source of water for animals is usually different from that of humans, so our presence will do little to affect animals’ water supplies. The rare cases where it does are the result of fixable misuse, and is thus also not a symptom of overpopulation. IV. ShelterWhile deforestation is a major problem in places like Brazil and Indonesia, with the advent of practices like sustainable logging and tree farms, we have ways of producing wood with minimal harm done to animals. In addition, the eviction of animals from trees is hardly a sign of overpopulation, particularly since (again assuming that widespread deforestation is not the issue) there are plenty of other trees those animals can go to. In addition, trees often fall as a result of disease or lightning, which also forces animals from trees. Three trillion trees is a very large number. That’s 500 trees for every person on Earth. The average home size in the U. S. (and homes in the U. S. are, on average, much larger than elsewhere in the world) would require, if built from wood entirely, 22 trees (the source I quote uses mature pines here). Not only that, but there are also a bunch of other building materials, like brick and concrete, which are not made of wood. Thus, there are more than enough trees to build homes with. ConclusionEarth has enough food, water, and materials for shelter for each of the seven billion people on Earth, and these resources, with the proper management, can come with minimal harm to animals. In addition, the Earth is large enough to not only give each person on Earth enough space to prevent overcrowding, it also gives each person enough space to support themselves. And, if current population projections are to be believed, these facts will not change even when population peaks in the latter half of the 21st century. And, again with proper management, we can keep the environment in an unaffected, and even an improving state. Thus, by definition, there’s no way that the Earth, given the current and projected number of people on Earth, can be considered overcrowded. Mismanagement, given the fact that it can be corrected, is hardly a symptom of overpopulation. There are efficient and practical ways that humans, as a society, can live without these issues. Thus, there's no reason to blame overpopulation on issues like pollution and the misuse of water. Sources[1]: . http://www.farmlandlp.com...[2]: . https://www.technologyreview.com...[3]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4]: . http://www.thehousedesigners.com...