Last September The New York Times ran a ridiculous article entitled 'Overpopulation Is Not The Problem' by one Erle C. Ellis. At the foot of this article it states that 'Erle C. Ellis is an associate professor of geography and environmental systems at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and a visiting associate professor at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design'.

Despite all these impressive credentials, however, it is clear that Erle C. Ellis is no wizard when it comes to basic arithmetic as he dismisses the notion that humans are behaving like bacteria exploding out of a petri dish, despite the world population having more than doubled in less than half a century. Fortunately, Robert Walker of The Huffington Post responded with a much more sensible and scientifically based article.

But who gives a shit about any of that? Right? Hell, just keep breeding, producing and consuming whilst at the same time hoping that it'll all work out fine and that boffins will figure out a solution whilst the rest of us go back to sleep.

Come on you selfish smug bastards, breed like there's no tomorrow. After all, if we keep acting like this there probably won't be...

'While acknowledging that we live on a finite planet with finite resources, Ellis insists that there "is no such thing as a human carrying capacity." Other species on this planet suffer massive die-offs when their numbers exceed what nature can sustainably provide, but modern humans, according to Ellis, are an exception to that rule. Humans, in his words, do not have to "live within the natural environmental limits of our planet."

'In support of that bold proposition, he notes that at numerous times in the past 200,000 years humans have altered the natural environment so as to increase the carrying capacity for our species. When we hunted large animals to near extinction, we found ways to hunt and consume smaller species. When our hunter-gather lifestyles did not produce enough food, we domesticated animals and began growing crops. When traditional farming was not producing enough, we manufactured fertilizer and began irrigating our crops. And because we expanded our carrying capacity in the past, we can do so again in the future.

'However, as anyone on Wall Street will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. The fact that a value of a stock has doubled or tripled in the past does not mean that it can go on doubling or tripling on into the future. In nature, as in the financial world, there are limits to exponential growth on a finite planet. Sooner or later, what goes up ultimately comes down. And many times it comes down with a crash or a bang. Bubbles burst.' (Huffington Post article).

media-underground.net