Population growth is key to pollution and destruction of wildlife habitats and ecology, so a direct human cause and effect link to be made here.
If you look back to one of Att's early posts on this thread, he did refer to Malthus, who set out his own version of a sort of Moore's Law.
The debate about whether population growth or natural processes have a causal effect on climate change remains open in my mind with no definitive proof on either side of the argument so far.
Again, it's the old Dirty Harry question "Do you feel lucky?"
However, steps to reduce population growth should form part of any policy to tackle pollution and flora/fauna destruction (and by implication climate change). Unfortunately because this is a moral and ethical choice, no one appears to want to tackle it and yet it appears to be a choice of simple logic, reduce the population = reduction in climate change.
Yerst, as I myself have already mentioned somewhere somewhen, we have been too many for some time and it's not that the governments of the world aren't aware of this but that it's politically very difficult to reduce populations on an inter-generational basis... and culls aren't generally vote winners. Mind you, with Trump fomenting war in the middle east and ebola gaining popularity in Africa, maybe the problem (i.e us) will be eradicated....or reduced.
