I disagree. Earth becoming better, would be ludicrously tested by removing all but a small population of humans and comparing survival rates between a given tim

I disagree. Earth becoming better, would be ludicrously tested by removing all but a small population of humans and comparing survival rates between a given time period and now. The Earth, itself, is not "becoming better" in any human sense. The statement was a fantastic statement, which also meant it was unqualified. > Population growth in animals is not just available resources, climate, location, and many other factors play their parts. Habitable area is a resource, which species compete for. There is a generous interpretation of my statement, but there isn't one of a "Earth is better", that makes sense. The commensurate appeal to logical thought was rightly pointed out as hypocritical. I stand by it.