What a ridiculous article. Not because it doesn't make some reasonable points, but because it assumes these points are so unique and unknown. Doesn't everyone hear the classic Malthus-versus-technological-advancement argument in highschool? I certainly did multiple times.
I mean, it's more-or-less the basis for all Sci-Fi: stories fall under either A) rich-get-richer and pending disaster as the Earth is overburdened, B) technology makes everything wonderful, C) Humans explicity inhibit their population, or D) humans find new land on other planets (usually also coupled with A,B, or C or Earth)). This isn't some debate that hasn't happened. This isn't some revelation that one comes to as an ecologist, this is an often-rehashed discussion. A worthy discussion, certainly, with points on both sides. But not one which the author has just now discovered a barely-known side of.
Now if the author had done some serious research and presented actual evidence for his side, I'd be all ears. Too bad there wasn't anything new in the article.
I mean, it's more-or-less the basis for all Sci-Fi: stories fall under either A) rich-get-richer and pending disaster as the Earth is overburdened, B) technology makes everything wonderful, C) Humans explicity inhibit their population, or D) humans find new land on other planets (usually also coupled with A,B, or C or Earth)). This isn't some debate that hasn't happened. This isn't some revelation that one comes to as an ecologist, this is an often-rehashed discussion. A worthy discussion, certainly, with points on both sides. But not one which the author has just now discovered a barely-known side of.
Now if the author had done some serious research and presented actual evidence for his side, I'd be all ears. Too bad there wasn't anything new in the article.