The issue is that over-population isn't really an ideal. It's occurring and it's destroying one habitat in place for another (note Amazonian deforestation), drying food supplies and causing aggressive demand over fuel.
Things certainly aren't horrible. If we take a step back and try to take in the big picture and weigh-out the benefits and detriments humanity has right now, on which side would the balance fall?
I don't think it's ever really been a debate. The world--in a more strict sense, "humanity"--has never really been in good shape. Because there has always been conflict.
Things are only bad now if you are comparing them to historical precedent. Worse implies a devolution, a degradation of state.
But look at the medical and technological advances we've made, how progressive we've become in terms of social thought. That certainly counts for something.
Could the world be in worse shape? The question is too broad. In respect to me, I'll probably consider the world in a better place more than, say, a family in Tehran or Pakistani widow as a result of pesticide testing.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks