You imply that the following problems are most importantly related to, essentially, raw population numbers…

-Reduction and threatened extinction of large mammals in Africa
-Africans eating boiled rats
-1 million South Sudanese on the brink of starvation
-4600 Africans drowning while being smuggled into Europe in the last 2 years
-Polar ice caps melting, and an 11 mile crack in the Antarctic ice shelf (Assuming there is actually a problem here)
-The Great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch
-The Fukushima disaster

…and not to poverty (independent of population size), neocolonialism, geopolitics, the sun, corporations holding no responsibility for the waste they originate, energy monopolies and suppression of clean/safe/cheap/de-centralized energy sources. Congratulations, I believe you just secured a membership in The Club of Rome.

You make the bizarre assumption that I “clearly don’t realize” what the global pop growth looks like over the course of known history. You say “we are adding a billion people every 12 years” as though this rate is expected to continue or increase, and you seem to imagine we are facing “endless, exponential human population growth”, yet demographic models do not predict continued exponential growth or even linear growth at the current level continuing much longer, especially globally. And no, less people equaling less environmental degradation — it really isn’t that simple. You could have a global population of 500,000,000 and have a global corporate government continue to strip-mine and pollute and lay waste to the planet in service of its own ends.

You also say that a statement I quoted (not that I made), is “pure garbage” because it dares to point out that poverty might cause more problems for an environment than population size or growth itself. Yet, many of the trees cut down were and are, as the statement points out, for fuel, because the people do not have access to more efficient and sustainable power sources. Never mind the modern suppression of hemp in favor of pulp and paper from trees.

Additionally, as I alluded to above, the first four points of yours that I highlighted clearly have much more to do with poverty (and neocolonialism/corporate plunder, geopolitics etc.) than with population numbers in and of themselves. Poaching is attractive when there is so much poverty and weak rule of law, and starvation and economic migration don’t exist because there isn’t enough to go around, they exist because political and economic powers create the conditions for them and allow them to persist.

…”some jerks” have draconian methods, yes, the ones you cited, Malthus and Ehrlich, who provided the foundation for this entire misanthropic, elitist, population-as-the-root-of-all-evil mentality. And my God, I was more right than I thought about the NSSM 200 analogue…You actually seem to think that the U.S. president should take it upon himself to enact population control over the entire globe. But don’t worry, “no one would even have to be hurt”. Amazing.

None of this is to say that unending population growth on this planet is desirable, or that large populations, interacting with other factors, don’t contribute to environmental degradation and species extinction. Nor am I advocating for the Catholic Church (or any church) and its anti-contraception proselytizing. But that’s a far cry from this myopic, neo-Malthusian hysteria and misattribution of ills to “this greatest problem” as you call it, of population growth, which conveniently shelters the corporate power-elite from responsibility.

“People in the right economic circumstances generate wealth; you need wealth to protect the environment,” he said. “Poverty, not people, is the great enemy of the environment. Poverty is what leads people to cut down the last tree for fuel, to plant the last square foot of land for food.” http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2013/11/29/bilderberger-jonathon-porritt-having-more-than-two-children-is-irresponsible/

This statement that you made is pure garbage. What do you think every tree that was ever cut down on this planet was cut down for ? FOR HUMAN NEEDS. So less people means less consumption and therefore less environmental degradation. It is really that simple. The concept that we should have endless, exponential human population growth on this Earth is clearly total insanity.

And their frontline operatives will be transhuman versions of Chelsea Clinton, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Angelina Jolie and Bono.

“NSSM 200 captured the power elite’s preoccupation with carrying capacity and population control. These concepts originated with the ideas of Thomas Malthus…”

“Malthus concluded that society should adopt certain social policies to prevent the human population from growing disproportionately larger than the food supply. Of course, these social policies were anything but humane. They stipulated the stultification of industrial and technological development in poor communities. With the inevitable depreciation of vital infrastructure, society’s “dysgenics” would eventually be purged by the elements. According to Malthus, such sacrifice guaranteed a healthy society.”
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/08/24/the-cambodian-memory-hole/

Read this on Malthus, Ehrlich, and overpopulation propaganda: https://www.corbettreport.com/the-last-word-on-overpopulation/

(from above) Malthus’ words: “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague…But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases…”

Apparently Obama was listening to Ehrlich. Read this on Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, who co-authored Ecoscience with Paul and Anne Ehrlich: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/06/30/when-malthusians-become-messiahs/

(from above) “… (in) Ecoscience, Holdren endorses “sterilizing women after their second or third child” and administering a “long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin” for “coercive fertility control.”
“…(also in) Ecoscience, Holdren reintroduces the draconian notion of adding sterilants to drinking water…

As were the ‘fellers: “Senator Jay Rockefeller said, “Dr. Holdren, I don’t want to embarrass you but I sometimes refer to you as walking on water.””

Darwin and Malthus:

“In fact, Darwinism and Malthusianism are actively promulgated within orthodox academia because of the political and social capital that they afford for an elite few. L. Fletcher Prouty elaborates:

“We’re still operating under the principles of Haileybury College — Malthus and Darwin — even though both of them are ridiculous. It’s been proved today that our ability to produce food is 70 times greater per farmer than it was in the time of Malthus. It’s been proved that Darwin never did discover the origin of the species — no scientist has ever described the origin of any species. But those two doctrines were implanted by the East India Company’s mind-control techniques so thoroughly that we still believe them. (Ratcliffe)”” http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/06/30/survival-of-the-richest-obamas-corporate-stimulus-package/

Additional quotes:

“Underneath the multitude of neo-Malthusian voices warning of the dire consequences attached to unchecked population growth, there is the hissing sound of demographic deflation.

“One of the first indications that the people bomb was fizzling out came in a 2001 article in Nature Magazine entitled “The end of population growth.” In the article, the authors concluded that there is “around an 85% chance that the world’s population will stop growing before the end of the century” (Lutz, Sanderson, and Scherbov). Furthermore, the authors predicted that the coming population decline “will pose major social and economic challenges” (ibid).”” http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/04/13/the-floodgates-open-wide-obama-and-our-eugenical-future/

“Editor of CitizenLink, Jennifer Mesko, weighed in as well. The proposed report by the Sustainable Development Commission due out next month, says Steven Mosher, amounts to an “economic death warrant.””

“People in the right economic circumstances generate wealth; you need wealth to protect the environment,” he said. “Poverty, not people, is the great enemy of the environment. Poverty is what leads people to cut down the last tree for fuel, to plant the last square foot of land for food.” http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2013/11/29/bilderberger-jonathon-porritt-having-more-than-two-children-is-irresponsible/