Right over his head
Even if we take Ronald Bailey's claims about population growth here as true (which they may be, I don't have the background to evaluate them), he's still wrong about this:
"The world has never been overpopulated with humans in any meaningful sense."
What? He says this, the very first line of his article, and then goes on to argue that we will not continue to grow as much as some scientists say we will. Fine - but how does that prove that we are not overpopulated right now, that the ecology of the earth cannot really sustain this many people living the lifestyles we do? At best his contention is arguable, but Bailey doesn't bother - he just presents it to you as a fait accompli. That's bad writing and bad science.
"The world has never been overpopulated with humans in any meaningful sense."
What? He says this, the very first line of his article, and then goes on to argue that we will not continue to grow as much as some scientists say we will. Fine - but how does that prove that we are not overpopulated right now, that the ecology of the earth cannot really sustain this many people living the lifestyles we do? At best his contention is arguable, but Bailey doesn't bother - he just presents it to you as a fait accompli. That's bad writing and bad science.
