|
The resources idea is good -- not so much how many people, but what kind of drain they are on the planet's resources. If we've got the resources to keep going indefinitely at this population, the world is not overpopulated. But if we're burning through resources faster than they're created, we are overpopulated. And I think the latter case is true.
As to why certain areas are overpopulated -- because that's where the money is. Major metro areas are centers of money, wealth, and economic activity: meaning, you can get a job, if not always buy a house. In Montana, buying a house would be cheap -- but getting a job? The economy there is small, it probably can't support any more people than the ones who live there now, unless they bring their own jobs with them or choose to retire there (don't need jobs).
There are big cultural and social advantages to the big city, but it's the big city economy that keeps people there. If there was some way to decentralize the economy more -- if more people didn't necessarily have to live near their employers -- you'd see the inhabitants of major metro areas spread out across the U.S. faster like a bag of ball bearings thrown onto a hardwood floor. Big city money, small-town expenses -- yeah, that'd do it.
|