It was the most uncompelling argument I've seen within this forum. Honestly, it is easier to argue with a religious fundamentalist on the existence of God, than to deal with any of the red herrings, straw men, pseudo-facts and nonsensical diatribe espoused by Malcolm.
I'm no fan of the extremist environmentalist movement that would have us reduce to a population of 500 million and survive on a completely vegan lifestyle reminiscent of our ancestral cave-dwellers. But Malcolm has illogically and stupidly tied this mindset to the entire population debate.
Malcolm has stuck his fingers in his ears, plunged his ostrich head in the sand and is singing "la la la - population isn't an issue".
I enjoyed reading his Feb 09 article "We have nothing to fear but hype itself" and suggest that Malcolm has taken this to the extreme by choosing to ignore any sign of any problem anywhere in the world, particularly if it means having to take some personal responsibility for one's over-consuming western lifestyle.
Malcolm claims some superiority without actually providing any evidence to support his argument or disprove the "anti-populationist" view. He appears to have a disliking for Sandra Kanck (and as both he and I are ex-Democrats I can totally understand that feeling *smirk*) but this feeling, rather than logic, seems to be driving his argument.
I particularly like this attack:
The anti-pops use a curious form of syllogism in their arguments which have been used by cults since time immemorial. It goes like this:
a. population is killing the environment;
b. we can save the environment;
c. help us rid the earth of population.
Given that Malcolm also referenced carbon emissions, I presume that he is a believer in man made climate change, so I put the same argument back at him as my proof that climate change is NOT an issue to be concerned about:
The climate-changeists use a curious form of syllogism in their arguments which have been used by cults since time immemorial. It goes like this:
a. CO2 is killing the environment;
b. we can save the environment;
c. help us rid the earth of CO2.
Whoops, Malcolm!
The reality is that the rise or fall in population of any species is known to have dramatic and measurable effects upon any local environment. We've seen it with fish, rabbits, cane toads, locusts, and thousands of others in modern history. Ecosystems while being generally robust and hardy are also delicately trying to maintain balance.
Humans are one of the few, if not the only, global species pervading and having a major effect on the local and global environments. To think otherwise is pure insanity.
