Human population is expanding rapidly. That's undeniable. The big question that comes with this is, how long can the Earth sustain us? Will another great war break out when resources finally become too scarce? Will we develop some sort of means of living in space (colonizing another planet perhaps) in time? China already has a one-child policy. How would you react if that same law was instituted in your country?
Conversely, do you think experts are overly-exaggerating these problems?
tl;dr discuss human overpopulation 

It depends on how you want to live your life. If you're ok with third world standards, then the earth can support more people. If it's your typical first world standard, I believe the maximum sustainable population with our current technology is about 100 million. Either way, 7 or even 4 billion is far too many. A one child policy isn't a bad start, but more needs to be done to curb population growth such as offering tax perks to couples who choose to adopt instead of having a child. And of course more investing into renewable energy sources is needed.

epicamazing : There's lots of death happening on earth, so I bet our planet can handle the world population due to human loss. But I think there might be another American war in the future, and I've heard from researchers that most of the world's population will be wiped out by then. I sort of doubt that. And fare note, there will also be most of the languages gone by 2050.

PixelBrick : Human death (dying of natural causes such as old age) will never naturally balance the population. Especially since in some cultures it's quite normal to have 5-10 children. Death by other humans or lack of resources, however, has kept the population low in the past. The problem with that is now we have medicine that's been advanced by leaps and bounds, meaning population has increased by leaps and bounds as well. We also have a shaky world peace so less people are dying for war.

There's a philosopher named Thomas Hobbes who said life is short, nasty, brutish, and we die violently quickly.  More population can be handled because humans have found ways to be more intensively farm land.  I read an article about crickets being a major source of protein in the future because they have a higher efficiency compared to raising cattle.  Wheat grows taller and can yield more and technology allows us to keep up with population demands.

How long can the earth sustain us?  If we make the technological advances, indefinitely.

Will another great war break out over resources?  Yes.  My bet is potable water.

Will we develop a means of living in space?  Yes, eventually.

How would I react to a one-child law?  I would rebel.  My country is founded on personal freedom and I don't think it will ever happen in my life.

Are scientists exaggerating?  Some probably are.  They want to attract attention to their published works so they build up a concern and have people follow what they say.

Overpopulation.
Could it be a problem in the future?
....................................
I say NO.
Currently. If you observe people today in general?
The thing to look for when there is too many people on one space of land?
Is there any freedom?
If people do not like it in one place or space. Why not move to another?
The answer is they are hindered or cannot move out freely.

If you want specifics you can check out many documents on Prisons and Overpopulation there. Behaviours. Escapes. Early Releases and so on and so on.

People that have their freedoms are not often hindered and move to other places to have acceptance, work, better education, or even better food.

If you Take away things like work, education, and acceptance? Then People tend to migrate.

If You think that the wars everywhere and/or anywhere could stop long enough for breeding to cause a problem?

I'll tell you now that the wars could never stop when people are being forced to endure their freedoms being robbed of them.

Couple that with the dangerous tools we have in the modern world today?
Trust me. It will not end soon.
When it does end I am certain mankind will find another way to "thin the heard" well before people overpopulate the third rock from the sun.

Fun Brain teaser though.
Good Luck.
Peace.

It could certainly cause a problem -- in nature, I mean. Due to our growing population, we're wasting fossil fuels faster than me running after a bagel. I mean, we're trying to get other sources, but not exactly succeeding. Also, we're depending on nature in other ways, too. By, I don't know, 2050, a common species could be extinct in due to overpopulation. We'll be destroying ecosystems for our benefit. So, basically, the only real impact that I foresee is the destruction of our natural beauty.

Over seas in places like China and Japan are crowded with people. I think that by overpopulation, we don't really think about our natural environment as much. More factories and such will be made, which is good for employment, but it will destroy the o-zone even more by CFS (Chloroflorocarbons) from aerosol cans. So, eventually the United States will be overpopulated. That is what I see in the future. 

Well, in my opinion, it could actually be a problem. If all the human sources required to live is running out, then how will we be able to even live? Though the area I live in doesn't really seem overpopulated but I have seen some other areas with a huge population though. Plus overpopulation can also cause global warming depending on the people's behaviors. (I think). 

Yes I could see over population becoming a issue in the neat future because with the way technology advances you can keep people alive much longer than what we could have in earlier times and when people don't die and keep reproducing space becomes limited and resources become scarce and more limited but this won't be a issue anytime soon but it could happen over the span of the next 30-50 years .

Overpopulation isn't a myth, but it isn't here yet. Water will be the scarcest of resources eventually, but that is not now. Before large population control measures are taken place, other controls will happen first. Pets are a luxury, and will be restricted/banned. Meat is a luxury. Certain types of plants have little or no benefit. Ice caps are not necessary for a stable atmosphere. Pluming, even, is non-essential. Desalinization plants can become government funded and, assuming innovation, streamlined.

The "population control" measures that exist now, such as abortion or the one-child law in china, have nothing to do with scarcity of resources. Instead, the former is advocated as right to privacy and the later is for economic control (couldn't keep up infrastructure, pollution due to crowded cities, less job growth necessary and lower unemployment numbers, etc.). Many places that have population issues currently (sub-Saharan Africa, India, China) do not have issues that can only be solved by drastic limiting measures. Sub-Saharan Africa needs infrastructure in order to access resources that currently go undistributed. India has income disparity that doesn't distribute resources properly person to person (although that disparity continues to decrease) and China only has issues in population density which can be solved by urban planning with infrastructure or reducing urbanization.

The projections I usually see are at 9 billion, but that assumes we keep all the luxuries currently in place. It can definitely be higher than that, especially if we remove some of the bigger non-essential aspects of common human life.

If we are talking resource wise, than yes, it could be a big problem. However, there is enough space in Texas to fit every single person in it.
"Could water be a problem?" some people ask, and the answer is no, at least not a big one, it estimated that it takes around 350-400 billion liters of water per day to hydrate 7.8 billion people a day, which might seem a lot,but the Columbia River alone could produce that amount in less than a day. Sure, we would need to clean it to make it drinkable, but we could still survive on the water part. The problem would be the other resources we need to survive, those might be a problem though, but that would take a lot to explain and frankly I don't want to do that (That sound mean...)

maguc : Well, sure, we could fit everyone in Texas (source?) but it would be, as the saying goes, like sardines in a can. People need space.

epicamazing : If space is the problem, than we could use all of north america, and use the rest of the world to get resources, Like farming or getting water.

It is definitely a problem. Survival of the fittest will kick in and the more fit will survive. According to ecological succession, everything will return to normal after some time.

Just depends on what you mean by problem. Will our overpopulating eventually destroy nature? If that is the question, the answer is no. People say in this thread that we are running through energy sources like crazy and polluting everything. Then they say how we are also consuming food resources and all that good stuff. Then they say that we are living longer with medicine advances, thereby defying the laws of nature. Though that stuff is true in their own way, the concepts are misunderstood, I think. But the defying or overcoming nature with living longer through medicine is completely wrong. 

We can consume every fuel source possible, cut all the trees down, and eat every last animal. But that would not end nature. If we got to that point, humans would be sealing it for themselves, but nature will live on. Even if we consumed all that stuff, the energy is not gone. It is just converted into something else. Humans will die in this scenario, and nature will pretty much just start over like it did in the beginning. All our man-made things will eventually erode away and all those atoms will be carried all around will deposit again. We aren't just destroying all the atoms and energy by consuming resources. They are still there (except for the ones we have sent in space, of course ) Nature will live on and clean up our mess. 

But that is in an all human die scenario. What people don't remember is that as smart as we are, we are animals that are bound by cycles. For example, it has been observed in animals in low food environments to not be able to become pregnant if they are below a certain fat threshold. In certain parts of the world, humans have been observed to be subject to that too. If we actually consumed so much of our natural food that we couldn't feed everyone, not only would many starve, but just as many would physically be unable to become pregnant due to not being able to support the pregnancy. Death rate would go up, and birth rate would go down. The food replenishing cycle would take a long long time before it could support a high human population again, but it would eventually. We are advanced, but not so advanced that we can live without nourishment. We are subject to that cycle, and we are in no way breaking, overcoming, or even bending it. 

Now, if you are asking if it is a problem in that it makes the quality of life worse, then the obvious answer is yes. If you disagree, ask 3rd world countries what their life is like. 

It is a problem in that it lowers quality (but not life expectancy). But it is not a problem in the point of destroying or ruining nature. Nature will always recover. It might not be your idea of recover, but that is a matter of perspective. We aren't destroying any energy. It is all still here.