[CaptainHaplo]

By all means Skybird, continue. I have no doubt that you do not see the points raised as finger pointing. In speaking with you, I have seen that you try your best to be balanced, and I respect that. Your intent is not an attack, but the points of the original writers apparently differs, regardless of whether you see it.

We can all agree there is a severe overpopulation problem. I personally cannot say that 1.5 Billion is the "ideal maximum" for the ecological system we live in, but anyone willing to be intellectually honest can see we are in a non-substainable cycle as things stand due to overpopulation.

I am fairly confident that almost all the community here would agree that genocide to kill off the excess population is an answer that is beyond morally reprehensible, and thus not an option. And your right, the solution should have been implemented a long time ago, before the numbers became higher than the limitation.

But is it "too late"? I for one don't think so. While there are ways to lengthen our viability in this system, ultimately the numbers must reduce drastically, or the ecosystem humanity relies on must expand. The question is, as a race, do we move forward to the abyss and jump in, allowing the ecological collapse to trim us back as a species, or do we slow our approach to the edge, while building a bridge over that abyss, so that we may continue to move forward as a race?

Should we choose the first, humanity will survive, but in such a regressed state that it would be nearly unrecognizable to most of us. Should we choose the second, then we need to stop arguing amongst ourselves over issues that will have little true impact on the equation - such as global warming - and instead look at the true and hard "barriers" to the survival of our species.

When it comes to "using" the resources we have, I must point out that only when they are gone will most people move away from them - out of necessity. While an unfortunate facet of our nature, it does create opportunity - because as is often said, necessity is the mother of invention.

Do continue - because I think the discussions will be quite interesting. However, when I see a flaw, or a finger point, I will bring it to light. It is not to invalidate the point of view, but to demonstrate its lack of objectivity. I personally am familiar with the philosophy that "rational" thought trades short term gains for long term problems, as well as that it lacks a moral component. However, the only alternative to rational thought - is instict. The selfish instict of man - which often times overrides his rational thought - is what got us in this mess to begin with.