Tongue in cheek, but I do genuinely ascribe some merit to neo-Malthusian observations, if not their statist proscriptions. I find it consistent with other philosophers who find human societies fragile. It is worthwhile to consider the natural limitations of our planet, but without the premature conclusions, fakery, and double-standards the establishment elites subscribe to. The only claim I'll make is that it would be disastrous if we had 1950's birthrate with elvish lifespans.

For example, I find anthropogenic global warming inconclusive and adherents inline with the oversimplictic unconstrained camp mentioned in Unknownsailor's comment. My concern is more about Fermi's Paradox; what's the upper-bound of our planet's depletion versus ideal population range, and how do we minimize risk of a nuclear extinction before, and if interstellar travel is feasible.

Tongue in cheek, but I do genuinely ascribe some merit to neo-Malthusian observations, if not their statist proscriptions. I find it consistent with other philosophers who find human societies fragile. It is worthwhile to consider the natural limitations of our planet, but without the premature conclusions, fakery, and double-standards the establishment elites subscribe to. The only claim I'll make is that it would be disastrous if we had 1950's birthrate with elvish lifespans.