Overpopulation:

     (1) too many of any one species to balance and interact harmoniously with the other species and elements in an eco-system which, to remain healthy and viable, requires all the elements in its make-up to balance and interact with all the other elements harmoniously;
     (2) more people than CAN each and every one be provided the best life practically possible in a less populated world.

     Right now, either of those definitions is academic, since (to anybody but an insensitive entrepreneur with a vested interest in growth, a politician trying to be all things to all and especially all rich constituents, or a dolt suckered by the insiders' media) both those lines were obviously crossed hundreds or even thousands of years ago. I'd say at least before Columbus was pushed west by population pressure, but probably way before that.
     Right now, overpopulation clearly enough means:
    (3) over 6 billion people in a world just right for a fraction of that number.

     The definition adopted by pseudo progressives in the early 90's (to which I can't rationally assign a number) was: more than the optimum population, i.e. all we can get in, as if a not quite critical mass would be ideal. Of all the politically correct garbage smothering us since 1990, that has to be the closest to actually insane. I mean it's literally mad to WANT to live in a world any MORE crowded than this - or to suppose that any crazy cosmic ethic requires that we go for the most the world can stand. The optimum population idea was and is nothing more respectable than a politically correct concession made to minorities hypocritically presumed to be culturally incapable of growing past their tradition of proliferating quail-like families. A realistic optimum population, if, to protect your popularity, you must profess such a concept, would be a number comfortably and safely BELOW definitions #1 and #2 above. In fact, while there clearly can be and are too many people, there is no such thing as too few people. If the human population were to die out, so what?
     I won't waste space on any of the loony-tunes population theories of religious lumpen resisting science.

     Our eco-system is NOW no longer healthy and viable (see definition #1). That's why it's NOW visibly falling apart. And the best life practically possible (see definition #2) has to include a VIEW down any street of open green hills; an over ABUNDANCE of nearby wilderness full of unstressed wildlife; crystal clear air and water and unpolluted soil; AND a main street in everybody's hometown that not only ISN'T a strip mall but would look good on a Christmas card.

     If I just lost you, you deserve to be lost. Go to another website and look at real estate and super-spa ads or play video games full of freeways and crashing car images.

FRONT PAGE