Just this past Oct. 17th, the U.S. hit a major milestone. There are now 300 million people here. My question is simply this: at the rate the U.S. population is growing, are we headed for overpopulation? Are there any people or theories that claim this? And for that matter, is the simple fact the U.S. population is constantly growing a sign of this?
Thank you in advance to all who reply 
I don’t think you can get any agreement on an answer to this question without some agreed-upon definition of what constitutes “overpopulation”.
AFAICT, the US is nowhere near the point of actually not having enough space for all its people to live, not having enough resources to support all its people or dispose of all their wastes, etc. We’re still one of the most sparsely-populated developed countries around.
On the other hand, we’re already having a very disproportionate impact on the global environment. Most climate scientists and environmentalists seem to think that our current patterns of resource use and pollution are about to produce, or are already producing, substantial changes in climate systems and our local ecosystems. There could be very serious consequences ahead if we don’t either shift to lower-eco-impact lifestyles or substantially reduce our population. (Of course, most of the consequences are also very dependent on what other nations do, not just us, but we seem to have the biggest per-capita environmental effect.)
So, depending on how you define overpopulation, we’re either nowhere near it or already there.
The best available objective means of determining if an area is overpopulated is to look at its “ecological footprint”.
It is pointless talking about how much space a country or region physically has to hold people. The important thing is how much resources are available to maintain a standard of living given rate of consumption and efficiencies.
Since the USA has a greater footprint than biocapacity, there is a strong agrument that it is overpopulated. Then again one could argue that if other regions around the planet provide this demand for resources the USA would not be overpopulated. However, when you look at the planets total footprint, it is greater than Earths biocapacity.
As a simple population density issue you cannot claim that at all. The US has 31 people per km2, the UK has 250, France 109, Japan has 340.
Though of course there are resource consumption issues (people in the US consume more resources than there counter parts elsewhere)…
I don’t know, but I sure do believe that 30 million people in California is too damned many.
I’m here, pull up the ladder.
Of course, much, if not most of the U.S. is a lot drier in climate than those places. Ease of access to abundant water is probably the principal differentiating factor of sustainability, beyond merely asking how many people you can stuff into an area.
[quote]
The population of my neighborhood is definitely increasing. Any time a house or older apartment house gets torn down, a bigger apartment building (or condo development) goes up in its place. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it forces us to give up outmoded ideals of suburban lifestyles, and to extend our rapid transit system so it becomes truly citywide and comprehensive.
Don’t worry folks. The brilliant minds of the Bush Administration are WAAAAAAAAYY ahead of you.
Thanks for paraphrasing me.
An example:
United Arab Emirates has a global footprint of 11.9 hectares per person, even higher than that of the USA (9.6 ha/person). However, being such an arid country, the biocapacity of UAE is only 0.8 ha/person. They have only 36 people per km2. Even with such a relatively low population density, on could argue that UAE is very much overpopulated.