How is it that we're on a technology forum and people continually insist that we've achieved the maximum rate of advancement? Also we most certainly do not spend all of our resources advancing areas of technology that would sustain more people, for instance I think there could easily be more research put into food growth/production/sustainability and perhaps things like housing development than are currently being done, but since there is no impending doom from overpopulation we tend to spread our interests around as the free-ish market allows. Everything we produce isn't going to make it easier for more people to survive, but I'm sure much could be done if it became a priority.

Some of us wish we'd be smarter than free market and have the ability to allocate resources proactively, instead at the last possible minute, when prices finally start to reflect the impending doom. Noticing that Earth has a carrying capacity and that we have to do something about it (either stop growing, lower our footprint or extend that capacity) is expressing the belief that we can do better.

I didn't insist anything. I simply suggested reading about carrying capacity. It's a relevant topic to population control, and it could broaden his understanding of the issue.

The "carrying capacity" of earth is well, well above (constantly revised) estimates.

What will need to change is the efficiency of how we as a species make use of the earth. We can feed many times the current world population easily. We can house many times the current world population easily. What we can't accomplish is doing those things the same way we do things now.

Advances in agriculture, energy and housing are needed. Advances which are happening as we furiously type at each other.

Either we all die horribly or we'll all be fine.

I would put any research or estimates into perspective. We have well surpassed predicted carrying capacities, but maybe these estimates are different?

Example:

> In a 1994 study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro estimated the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million

The dangers of over-population myth assumes a naive view of a static society. For instance, we can reasonably have X land for food production, from that we can grow Y food and that can feed Z people so anything above Z would be harmful. The problem is that Y is dependent on human innovation and technology. Same can be said for most resources. We never did reach peak oil.

These predictions of inevitable decline have been wrong for a long time. I don't know why you put so much faith into the modern day equivalents.

Additionally, Z is dependent on social and economic pressures. As the world becomes more urbanized, birth rates have been going down because it is becoming more expensive to raise children. This is occurring naturally without artificial limits imposed.

The carrying capacity of Earth is seemingly revised constantly. The overpopulation crisis we imagined decades ago never materialized.