There are many issues today that pose a threat to our way of life.

Overpopulation is a serious
problem that will eventually have an extremely negative effect on our countries, and our
planet. The problems that arise due to overpopulation could even prove to a fatal epidemic
that will eventually wipeout the entire human race. Oftentimes this issue is overlooked due to
lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject; or, simply because most of us are so
blessed that we are not affected first hand by the problems it is causing this very second.
Overpopulation, in my belief, is an enormously serious global issue that should be identified,
analyzed, and controlled immediately.
The term overpopulation literally means that the number of things (in this case: humans) that
depend on resources for survival is significantly larger than the amount of resources available
to them. Today our planet is experiencing the effects of multiplying citizens because of the
obstacles the environment is being forced to take on. Many believe that Earth is presently
occupied by to many people (Managing Land Use-Rebecca Stefoff 16). Year after year the
population multiplies faster and faster. Currently the world population is growing by 80
million people a year (Environmental sciences-Hohm, Jones, and Lio 116). Presently, there
are about 6 billion people occupying this planet, and by the middle of the approaching
century the U.N. predicts that the count will reach 9.4 billion (Mitchell). Both developed and
developing countries are at risk of the dangerous problems that overpopulation can and will
create. Nearly sixty percent of the increase will occur in AsiaChinas population will swell
from 1.2 billion to 1.5 billion, Indias is projected to soar from 930 million to 1.53 billion. In
the Middle East and North Africa, the population will probably more than double, and in SubSaharan Africa, it will triple (Mitchell).

Overpopulation puts a strain on resources and affects every face of your life from the cost of
buying a pair of shoes to the variety of vegetables available at the grocery store. When the
population grows faster than the world has the ability to absorb the additional demands for
food, clothing, shelter and employment, then you may perceive overpopulation as reducing
the number of jobs. In order to completely understand the job scenario we will focus onto the
following segmets.
Increased Employment
In general, the higher the population, the more jobs are created to serve the needs of the
many. More homes must be constructed, more food produced, more clothing manufactured.
Even during periods of population growth, new technology may reduce the number of
employees needed in one industry, while the needs of the people create new jobs in another.
For example, assembly lines and robotics have reduced the number of workers needed to
manufacture cars but a higher population may create a need for additional employees in the
health care industry to prevent the spread of disease.
More Competition
Overpopulation causes more competition for employment. Not only does increased
competition for work make it tougher to find a job, employers can hire employees for a lower
wage because there are more applicants than jobs to go around. Lower wages during a time
when the demand for products is higher than can be produced lowers your purchasing power
and enhances the illusion that there are fewer jobs. During tough times, employees are also
less likely to give up a job they dislike because the odds are against them to find a better job.
The term increased employment makes us feel that overgrowing population in the eyes of an
unemployed individual, but all it does is decrease the standard for every living being.
Let us try and put more light on what I want to say,
Two little girls are playing on the floor. One of them presents her piggy bank to the other. She
goes: Im saving for when I get a low-paying job doing what I love.
The comic, by The New Yorkers cartoonist Amy Hwang, tells a lot about the reality of work
in our times. Differently from previous generations, where income and stability were the
main guidelines in choosing a career, ours is encouraged to find a job that brings pleasure.
Money, its argued, will come as a consequence. Youve got to find what you love, advised
Steve Jobs, one of the most successful businessman history has known, in a Commencement
address for Stanford graduates in 2005.
Amys cartoon drives attention for the fact that, outliers apart, theres always a trade-off. In
fact, things can be a little more extreme if you consider jobs people do for no payment at all
(ask any 20-something about his experiences with internships), and the legion of 9-to-5
workers that spend their free time investing in their music careers in the vain hope of
becoming rock stars.
The problem, is that there just are too many people in the market. As a solution, some
economists (namely, from the New Economics Foundation), have proposed a drastic
reduction in the number of working hours per week, to around 20. It sounds appealing at first,
but try telling that to an early career professional whos struggling to show that he loves what
he does more than anyone else. Besides, the sustainability of the idea is based on the

redistribution of the GDP. If the outcome of the Occupy Wall Street movement is of any
guideline, theres little doubt about the utopian nature of the proposal.
The fact that there arent jobs enough being created to keep up with population growth is just
part of the sad story. Consider, as an example, an early college student whos equally attracted
by topics in computer science and graphic design. Even if, in theory, there possibly is a job
where he can apply both technical and artistic skills, in great part occupations focus in one
area or the other. These days, hed have to choose one career path, and rely on good luck to
have made the right decision.
That is, devoting your entire professional life to one, and only one occupation, already is a
limiting perspective. In the ideal case, part-time jobs would be more easily available, and
people would optionally work on many of them, doing so not because they have to, but
because that would give them a more fulfilling life experience. But I digress. Until society in
general dont get educated enough to realize that no economy will support over-population,
well see many more generations of young professionals having their 20s ruined by
underpaying jobs and severe competition with colleagues that just happen to love doing the
same thing.

We're in the midst of the Earths sixth mass extinction crisis. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson
estimates that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) are being driven to
extinction. Compare this to the natural background rate of one extinction per million species
per year, and you can see why scientists refer to it as a crisis unparalleled in human history.
1. The current mass extinction differs from all others in being driven by a single species
rather than a planetary or galactic physical process. When the human race Homo
sapiens migrated out of Africa to the Middle East 90,000 years ago, to Europe and
Australia 40,000 years ago, to North America 12,500 years ago, and to the Caribbean
8,000 years ago, waves of extinction soon followed. The colonization-followed-byextinction pattern can be seen as recently as 2,000 years ago, when humans colonized
Madagascar and quickly drove elephant birds, hippos, and large lemurs extinct
[Eldridge, N. 2005. The Sixth Extinction. ActionBioscience.org.].
The first wave of extinctions targeted large vertebrates hunted by hunter-gatherers. The
second, larger wave began 10,000 years ago as the discovery of agriculture caused a
population boom and a need to plow wildlife habitats, divert streams, and maintain large
herds of domestic cattle. The third and largest wave began in 1800 with the harnessing of
fossil fuels. With enormous, cheap energy at its disposal, the human population grew rapidly
from 1 billion in 1800 to 2 billion in 1930, 4 billion in 1975, and over 7 billion today. If the
current course is not altered, well reach 8 billion by 2020 and 9 to 15 billion (likely the
former) by 2050.
No population of a large vertebrate animal in the history of the planet has grown that much,
that fast, or with such devastating consequences to its fellow earthlings. Humans impact has
been so profound that scientists have proposed that the Holocene era be declared over and the
current epoch (beginning in about 1900) be called the Anthropocene: the age when the
"global environmental effects of increased human population and economic development"
dominate planetary physical, chemical, and biological conditions [Crutzen, P. J. and E. F.
Stoermer. 2000. The 'Anthropocene'. Global Change Newsletter].

Humans annually absorb 42 percent of the Earths terrestrial net primary

productivity,30 percent of its marine net primary productivity, and 50 percent of its fresh
water [Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human
Domination of Earth's Ecosystems].

Forty percent of the planets land is devoted to human food production, up from 7
percent in 1700 [Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997.
Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems].

Fifty percent of the planets land mass has been transformed for human use [3].

More atmospheric nitrogen is now fixed by humans that all other natural processes
combined [Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human
Domination of Earth's Ecosystems]

Predicting local extinction rates is complex due to differences in biological diversity, species
distribution, climate, vegetation, habitat threats, invasive species, consumption patterns, and
enacted conservation measures. One constant, however, is human population pressure. A
study of 114 nations found that human population density predicted with 88-percent accuracy
the number of endangered birds and mammals as identified by the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature [McKee, J. K., P. W. Sciulli, C. D. Fooce, and T. A. Waite. 2004.
Forecasting Biodiversity Threats Due to Human Population Growth.]. Current population
growth trends indicate that the number of threatened species will increase by 7 percent over
the next 20 years and 14 percent by 2050. And thats without the addition of global warming
impacts.
When the population of a species grows beyond the capacity of its environment to sustain it,
it reduces that capacity below the original level, ensuring an eventual population crash.
"The density of people is a key factor in species threats," said Jeffrey McKee, one of the
studys authors. "If other species follow the same pattern as the mammals and birds... we are
facing a serious threat to global biodiversity associated with our growing human population."
[Ohio State University. 2003. Anthropologist Predicts Major Threat To Species Within 50
Years.].
So where does wildlife stand today in relation to 7 billion people? Worldwide, 12 percent of
mammals, 12 percent of birds, 31 percent of reptiles, 30 percent of amphibians, and 37
percent
of fish are threatened with extinction [International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
2009.]. Not enough plants and invertebrates have been assessed to determine their global
threat level, but it is severe.
Extinction is the most serious, utterly irreversible effect of unsustainable human population.
But unfortunately, many analyses of what a sustainable human population level would look
like presume that the goal is simply to keep the human race at a level where it has enough
food and clean water to survive. Our notion of sustainability and ecological footprint
indeed, our notion of world worth living in presumes that humans will allow for, and
themselves enjoy, enough room and resources for all species to live.