patrick.net

Although I try to live 'Earth' friendly, many of the environmentalist predictions are nothing but self-serving alarmism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

This one:

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,”

What is ironic is how much fatter people have gotten since the prediction.

Mining the deep wells of LibbyFuck hysteria, guilt tripping and gullibility is never a wrong decision.

What is ironic is how much fatter people have gotten since the prediction.

And that is why the predictions did not come true. You see, all those fat people caused the mass of Earth to increase, and thus expand Earth's orbit further from the sun. The wider orbit resulted in a temporary stay in global warming. Science, you see. But now we only have 12 years....

Booger says

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,”

What is ironic is how much fatter people have gotten since the prediction.

Say that again when the population reaches 12 billions, including 5 in Africa.
It's a bit early to laugh at it.

Heraclitusstudent says

Booger says

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,”

What is ironic is how much fatter people have gotten since the prediction.

Say that again when the population reaches 12 billions, including 5 in Africa.
It's a bit early to laugh at it.

What is to be laughed at is the specific, dated prediction made in 1970:
“The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

The population issue of the world in general pales compared to the problems from increasing 1st world population. It takes 100 third worlders to use the same resources as a single first worlder. If you think this issue is serious, then first world nations need to halt third world immigration and allow the natural low birthrate of the first world population to stabilize population at a sustainable level.

HeadSet says

The population issue of the world in general pales compared to the problems from increasing 1st world population.

Nope, the overflowing of poor population is the problem.
The rich population can always find ways to consume less.

HeadSet says

then first world nations need to halt third world immigration

That wouldn't stop the development of China, India, Brazil, etc... so I don't see how it would help stabilize first world population.

Inevitable predictions inevitably prove wrong.

Nope, the overflowing of poor population is the problem.

Nope, they are both a problem, but overpopulation of rich consumers is worse.

The rich population can always find ways to consume less.

Yes, go from 100x the resource use to 90x the resource use.

That wouldn't stop the development of China, India, Brazil, etc... so I don't see how it would help stabilize first world population.

Because as those countries develop into 1st world, they will stabilize population as well. It makes no sense to counteract 1st world population stabilization by importing 3rd world to make up the difference.