How do YOU define overpopulation then?
As I mentioned in my previous post, the definition of overpopulation will be dependent on a variety of factors.
For a baseline definition, one would include factors such as the size of the population, the density of the population to available, livable space, and the distribution of resources among this population.
But where this question gets tricky is in relation to how we define quality of life within this population. For example, it's possible that a country the size of America could support several billion (if not more) people. But what of available resources? If we assume an even distribution of resources to every individual, does this distribution support our predefined standard for quality of life? And is this quality of life measured by mere subsistence, or does it presume other factors? Obviously, how we answer this question will determine how we estimate the levels of population that are understood to be sustainable.
Additionally, political considerations come into play. For example, as a population grows, it becomes more and more important to ensure that available resources are evenly distributed (if, of course, the goal is to sustain the population level). But such a guarantee of equity in distribution will invariably involve governmental authority, which may impinge on the liberties of some (or all) individuals within this population.
So the question of overpopulation really comes down to how wish to define the mean quality of life that is desirable and the ends to which you are willing to go in order to enforce this within the population. Overpopulation, then, would represent a state of affairs in which it is impossible to maintain such standards.
