<Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This article appears to contradict the article Human overpopulation . Please see discussion on the linked talk page . (May 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> </Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This article appears to contradict the article Human overpopulation . Please see discussion on the linked talk page . (May 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> <P> Several estimates of the carrying capacity have been made with a wide range of population numbers . A 2001 UN report said that two - thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion with unspecified standard errors, with a median of about 10 billion . More recent estimates are much lower, particularly if non-renewable resource depletion and increased consumption are considered . Changes in habitat quality or human behavior at any time might increase or reduce carrying capacity . In the view of Paul and Anne Ehrlich, "for earth as a whole (including those parts of it we call Australia and the United States), human beings are far above carrying capacity today ." </P> <P> The application of the concept of carrying capacity for the human population has been criticized for not successfully capturing the multi-layered processes between humans and the environment, which have a nature of fluidity and non-equilibrium, and for sometimes being employed in a blame - the - victim framework . </P>

Maximum number of individuals a habitat can support