Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Greg Burnham]

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.

The question of whether there is enough food and resources available (to ensure a reasonable living standard) depends largely on the rate of human population growth doesn't it?

You seem obsessed with one side of the equation while ignoring the other side.

Humans share this planet. We don't own it. How many habitats and ecosystems of other species do you need to destroy before you are satisfied?

You're addicted to human population growth. You're a junkie.

You need a new job.

You are completely off base. I do not advocate population growth. Are you dense or something? I am of the belief, based on CURRENT DATA, that there are sufficient resources to feed even those people in over-populated 3rd world countries. Thomas Malthus' own theory has been proved incorrect by the facts. He is perhaps not entirely to blame, after all, who in his day could have foreseen the advances we've made in food production?

Find another thread in which to vent your spleen.

:moon: