Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Greg Burnham]

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

What utter crap you talk.

So what should the human race do?

Keep overpopulating but ensure a high rate of non-consumers?

You are "begging the question" Mark. We have yet to establish that the planet, as a whole, is over-populated. That is the point of this thread. The topic of the thread is questioning the assumption that there is not enough to go around (aka over-population / Malthusianism). You are assuming the conclusion within your argument, which is circular and therefore fallacious.

I am not denying that there are regions, even nations, that are over-populated if we define over-population as the number of humans within a region in excess of the resources required to sustain them within at least a minimum standard of quality of life. However, all agencies of government as well as private institutions dedicated to feeding the hungry as well as the United Nations report that there is enough food to go around GLOBALLY. Lack of food and resources is NOT the cause of hunger and neediness in the world today. It is lack of distribution due to political and economic considerations.

That we fail to find solutions to the distribution issue is abhorrent in my view. That we are willing to accept a paradigm that is over 200 years old (Malthusianism) that basically is completely fatalistic regarding feeding the hungry is morally negligent at best--especially when modern methods of food production and current data proves the old thinking to be flawed.