I mean, it's an intelligent argument and worth reading, but that doesn't change the fact that it assumes carrying capacity is a law of ecology that can't be altered by humanity... when in fact, that is exactly what is happening right now, in precisely and accurately measured tests and experiments, in genetically modified crops, and so on and so forth.
If humanity is self-destructive, it is equally self-engendering. And it is fairly reasonable to assume that this remains true for any species that genetically evolves into beings with a conscience and conscious thoughts.
His argument focuses too much on the bad and not enough on the good, giving a lopsided focus that is aimed at stimulating emotional distress, thereby forcing awareness on the less-versed reader.
It's healthy knowledge, but it is rather less than impartial to imply humanity is suicidal, which has strong psychological connotations. For human beings who are already in a sensory-overloaded world, his opinion amounts to a potential threat to the less-aware reader, leading to the typical dismissal of truths that are too hard to handle.
Case in point, I'm not sure if he got his point across, or rather, to the right people.
it doesn't even really touch global warming, but it's more about how humanity is using up too much of earth's resources too fast and destroying ecosystems because of it. along with the fact that once humans reach their carrying capacity, the population will crash leading ultimately to probable extinction.
I haven't read the article and I'm not going to but if halting population growth is what it takes to stop global warming that just isn't going to happen because it completely conflicts with most societies' morals, minus China I guess
I don't think the article is saying that the issues are too big to handle. it's stating different ways of thinking while eventually stating that the only way this can become reversed is to halt population growth.
you must not have gotten the point because none of this has to do with philosophy, this is an ecological issue and humanity's genetic pre-disposition to self destruct.
His argument is rather narrow-sighted and highly conjectural, which is ironic, given the content of it. Learn more about ecology and technological advances in biodiversity, friends! It is an ever-expanding field of study and research.
Climate change is a reality, but humanity is learning to combat it not tomorrow, but today. Same goes with allocation of natural resources and food shortages. Be a part of the solution, rather than the problem ("the issues are too big for us to handle, so let's ignore it, pray, and hope").
