"We transform the ecosystem to sustain ourselves" is the only real fact I pulled out of that nytimes article, note how it is under the OPINION column and not the science column. He provided 0 facts and figures to accompany his opinion, also did not say a single word about preserving nature. This guy and people like him seem willing to sacrifice everything other then ourselves for the sake of more humans.
This is what is wrong. We should not be willing to sacrifice so much just for more population. The way he puts it it seems he would have every forest clear-cut for farmland to sustain the population, well now we know factory farming doesn't work too well seeing as to keep up almost all commercial farms use messed up hormones and genetically modified organisms. GMOs that literally damage our DNA, making us more susceptible to cancer.
Also, him citing the past doesn't really have anything to do with the situation now. In the hunter-gatherer and early agricultural phase there was plenty of big game and small game of all sorts to hunt, now, not so much. Because of us. I've always wanted to know what the world would look like w/o us destroying it all. Who knows, maybe if we hadn't been so selfish we would still have elephant-like animals in the Americas, giant sloths, it could have possibly even given the chance for another intelligent specie to develop so we wouldnt have this encompassing attitude that we are more important then say the irwadaddy dolphins.
In reality, we are the most expendable resource on this planet. We are not rare, we are not one of a kind. There are billions of us. I can't believe any real scientist not being backed by the church or someone else that benefits from people having more children would deny overpopulation.
Sent from my DROID4 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
