[5] An instance of this phenomenon took place in the Horn of Africa when smallpox was eradicated, causing a sudden increase in the population that exceeded the region's carrying capacity.

Thomas Malthus (1766-1864) is perhaps the most well-known writer to have articulated the roots of the modern concept of human overshoot, with The Population Bomb (1967) by Paul Ehrlich reigniting the hotly-debated topic in more recent history.

Daniel Quinn claims to have modernized the concept of human overpopulation in what are likely the most well-read volumes to have given it extensive treatment as a subject of ecology: The Story of B (1996) and My Ishmael (1997).

This book included a computer-based model which predicted that the Earth would reach a carrying capacity of ten to fourteen billion people after some two hundred years, after which the human population would collapse.

Catton predicted that unless these issues were addressed, humanity would surpass the Earth's optimal carrying capacity, leading to potentially dire consequences.

It says that alongside the growth of the global population, humanity's consumption relative to Earth's regenerative capacity has surged by 73% in 1960 to 170% in 2016, particularly in countries with higher incomes.

Malthus composed this essay with the intention of refuting the impractical utopian concepts advocated by William Godwin and Marquis de Condorcet in their respective works, namely Political Justice and The Future Progress of the Human Mind.

In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich revived Malthus' argument in his book The Population Bomb, wherein he anticipated an impending global famine of catastrophic proportions.

[21] The predictions of Ehrlich and other neo-Malthusians were challenged by a number of economists, notably Julian Lincoln Simon, who said advances in agriculture, collectively known as the Green Revolution, forestalled any potential global famine in the late 20th century.

The use of abortion in some population control strategies has caused controversy,[49] with religious organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church explicitly opposing any intervention in the human reproductive process.

It states that "Women who are educated, economically engaged, and in control of their own bodies can enjoy the freedom of bearing children at their own pace, which happens to be a rate that is appropriate for the aggregate ecological endowment of our planet.

"[51] The book Fatal Misconception by Matthew Connelly similarly points to the importance of supporting the rights of women in bringing population levels down over time.

[52] Paul Ehrlich also advocates making "modern contraception and back-up abortion available to all and give women full equal rights, pay and opportunities with men," noting that it could possibly "lead to a low enough total fertility rate that the needed shrinkage of population would follow.