I'd start the discussion with Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb which started the movement and turned out to be spectacularly wrong; our technology developments far outpaced the supposed shortages. Similarly, climate alarmism has posted decades of false doomsday predictions.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

Another angle could be the population graph no longer being a hockey stick, but will be leveling off over the next century as countries stabilize in the modern world; you can now sustain a population with 2-3 children per family vs. 10+ with most dying from disease as children.

I'd also suggest looking at the result of government intervention; China's One Child Policy has resulted in an aging workforce and 30+M unmarried men which is a coming disaster. Alternatively, there's a strong position against foreign aid, specifically to the third world, where instead of stopping a famine or reducing poverty you simply induce population growth that cannot be sustained by the landscape without permanent aid.

More evidence that it's a myth is the push to limit population growth in the west, where people are having the fewest children, but want to import more workers to locations where they will use more resources than where they left.

It’s going to be a tough one, because it’s all about context. Attached is the argument that the entire earth can live in Alaska and then the math expands to claim Canada is more likely, but then Gives better context.

My opinion is that some parts of earth are overpopulated. And that resource consumption is an issue. A lot of people on both sides debate this so it’s going to be tuff to declare a winner or loser since people that want more space are going to say it’s overpopulated while minimalists would likely say there’s plenty of space.

My opinion is that it is currently close to being overpopulated - but I think that the nwo method of handling it is poop.

5 yr. ago on Reddit. They did the math.

Additional comment actions Area of Alaska: 663,300 mi² Global Population: 7.13 billion Average Household Size, conservatively: 4

Number of houses: 1.78 billion House size: 2,000 sq ft

Space needed for all those houses: 127,000 sq mi

Yes, technically, this 'fits', but it means nobody has a yard. More realistically, let's give every family 2 acres. This will give us space for roads, garages, driveways, and other space required for basic living.

At 2 acres per family, we need 5.5 million sq miles. That's 1.4 times the area of Canada - WAY bigger than Alaska.

Realistically, we could have the people live in skyscrapers. We could fit everyone in a fairly small state that way. But that's just living space. Farmland takes up a BUNCH of space. Businesses. Parks. Nature preserves. Inhospitable land like mountains and rivers. The raw calculation done here ignores all that.

More importantly, it's not just space we need. We have finite natural resources - wood can only grow so fast. There's only so much fresh water. We can only produce so much energy (and there's a reasonable argument that we're already producing too much with fossil fuels).

Math-wise, the meme is reasonable. You can tweak the numbers to reach their conclusion. But just because we all 'fit' somewhere doesn't mean it's big enough.