I think we've gone so far from what I was arguing - we can talk hypothetical 500 year future - but that has no bearing on what we should do right now. We still

I think we've gone so far from what I was arguing - we can talk hypothetical 500 year future - but that has no bearing on what we should do right now. We still have more than enough resources even with current technology to sustain current population growth for the foreseeable future - suggesting that we should start population control is just green bullshit these so called environmentalist bring up because they are afraid that their favorite animal is going extinct. I'm not much in to that "native American wisdom" about how we should be one with nature and how we can't eat money - money = resources + capital + labor = solution to whatever problem you're facing given enough time. As far as I'm concerned we should be working on solutions to reduce our dependence on the ecosystem - climate change is just an a symptom of a bigger problem - the environment we depend on is fragile - the solution isn't praying that everything stays the same and maiming ourselves so we stay within some magical limit they think is going to "appease" the "balance of nature" - we should be working towards replacing it with a more robust systems (eg. like controlled/engineered food production instead of relying on weather, pesticides, herbicides, etc. and hoping all goes well). This is what I mean by regressive thinking - instead of focusing on how these eventual problems could be solved trough innovation their solution is "stop doing whatever we beleive might cause that and hope for the best".