Erik Aronesty writes
FACTS:

[1] Places with less disease, more education and higher average
lifespans
have underpopulation issues.

[2] Places torn by war, disease and death have *overpopulation*
issues.

CONCLUSIONS:

If you really care about a sustainable future, you should work to
reduce disease and increase education, especially in the areas that
need it the most.

We've tried eugenics and facism, and forced resource limitations via
communism. Both have failed thus far.

Both sides (facists and communists) say that they were never really
"tried correctly". And I see that.

I also see the facts [1] and [2], and I am not so blind that I don't
see the answer to a sustainable future staring me in the face.

Note:

1) Happens in well developed and wealthy countries.
2) In poor underdeveloped countries.

Conclusion: increase world wealth.

Problem: this increases world pollution.

But then, overpopulation increases removal of wild areas.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.