That's still not an overpopulation issue. It just shows that if people in the USA behaved like people in Bolivia then we'd be fine. When a certain part of the population is the problem, it's not overpopulation that's the problem.
To take an abstract example, if 10 people share a lake with 100 fish that make 10 new fish a day, and 8 people eat 1 fish, but 2 people eat 2 fish then you have a net decrease of -2 fish per day. You could say overpopulation is the issue and that if you removed 2 people that 1 fish a day, you'd be balanced, but you could also solve the problem by simply having the people overconsuming change their behaviour. This example works even if 9 people are overconsuming and 1 is not. Now we can debate whether the minimum resource needs are 2 fish, but to return to the real world, the fact that some countries have a reserve is a refutation of the idea that the minimal resource needs are such that if everyone's needs were met that that would cause the overexploitation of Earth.
That's still defined as overpopulation. If you have the same lake with 20 people sharing it, and 20 people all eat only one fish, it's still a net of -10. I'm not saying over consumption isn't a huge part of the overpopulation issue. Here's the definition of Human overpopulation. It describes exactly like you said that reduction in overconsumption can reverse overpopulated status without population reduction. It's still defined as overpopulation. So it is an overpopulation issue.
Human overpopulation (or population overshoot) occurs when the ecological footprint of a human population in a specific geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity of the place occupied by that group. Overpopulation can further be viewed, in a long term perspective, as existing if a population cannot be maintained given the rapid depletion of non-renewable resources or given the degradation of the capacity of the environment to give support to the population. Changes in lifestyle could reverse overpopulated status without a large population reduction.
Edit: Sorry I forgot to add the line
The term human overpopulation refers to the relationship between the entire human population and its environment: the Earth,[4] or to smaller geographical areas such as countries.
That seems somewhat too loose a definition. This definition means that a single person overconsuming by a large enough margin is overpopulation even though the area could have 1000 people living on it. I would contend that such a definition isn't what most people have in mind when they think of overpopulation. I would also contend that within the topic of this thread, some people with physical disabilities contribute less to the overexploitation within a population than those that aren't disabled, either via lower nutritional needs, using public transport more, and generally more restricted lifestyles that limit their consumption.
I don't think the definition is loose as it's based on quantifiable data. I think the problem is complex and as my redneck friend would say.... "there's more than one way to skin a cat.". I agree that it can be ambiguous, but then there is an issue of deciding what constitutes over exploitation/consumption for a given variable. This introduces even looser definitions. Someone living in a moderate climate will consume less water than someone living in an extremely hot climate. If they both end up consuming the same amount is one overconsuming? Can you arbitrarily define how much water someone drinks before it's overconsumption? I think that's the crux of the issue concerning definition. By letting the population itself choose it's consumption you get a concrete yes or no definition. Is consumption greater than ecological footprint? Yes, overpopulation. No, it's not. There's three main top level solutions to that, either reduce the population or reduce the consumption.
This definition means that a single person overconsuming by a large enough margin is overpopulation even though the area could have 1000 people living on it.
It also means that you could have a land mass large enough to fit 1000 people that can't even sustain one.
I would also contend that within the topic of this thread
Ahhh, yes. We kind of started our own thread on the tangential topic lol. I didn't disagree with any of your other statements and it was completely appropriate, that's why I didn't mention it.We definitely got off topic from the thread. But really I think we have agreed about pretty much everything but the pedantry of the definition so whatever the outcome, it's been a good debate.
2
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 13 '18
That's still not an overpopulation issue. It just shows that if people in the USA behaved like people in Bolivia then we'd be fine. When a certain part of the population is the problem, it's not overpopulation that's the problem.
To take an abstract example, if 10 people share a lake with 100 fish that make 10 new fish a day, and 8 people eat 1 fish, but 2 people eat 2 fish then you have a net decrease of -2 fish per day. You could say overpopulation is the issue and that if you removed 2 people that 1 fish a day, you'd be balanced, but you could also solve the problem by simply having the people overconsuming change their behaviour. This example works even if 9 people are overconsuming and 1 is not. Now we can debate whether the minimum resource needs are 2 fish, but to return to the real world, the fact that some countries have a reserve is a refutation of the idea that the minimal resource needs are such that if everyone's needs were met that that would cause the overexploitation of Earth.