I just added them to the post, after i wrote everything else to avoid a follow up post as "oh yeah, says who" ... i don't care about the article, it;s just to prove a point that nobody knows how much earth can sustain so the term "overpopulation" is a fallacy in itself. Just like you guys can write overpopulation is superimportant there are other guys out there (as the articles prove) that write the opposite. Because overpopulation is vague and non-existent.
If I could i'd remove the articles, but I can't edit that post anymore. So do me the favor of ignoring it and don't assume those articles were the basis for the rest of my post. Which of course they weren't.
What you mention about technology not offering the solution to everything. I do believe science holds the answer, because it is already changing things as we speak, maybe it's going too gradually for ppl to notice but it's in effect. It's a multi faceted problem and from all fronts it's coming together. Economically, financially, socially, etc. Perhaps too slowly for some, but still. That's the whole struggle of cost and benefits you are reffering to.
Ppl just like to use terms like "crisis", "doom", "no solution". In the end there always is a solution because the perseverance of humanity can not and should not be underestimated.
Maybe of interest : http://www.mancheste...e-can-help.html
Edited by Render, 05 December 2012 - 05:14 PM.