"The UN report notes that the percentage of the world's population who qualify as "undernourished" has fallen by more than half, from 33 percent to about 16 percent, since Ehrlich published The Population Bomb."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
Yes, even in the Congo - though they're bad now, things were much worse fifty years ago. If you want to discuss the "billions of deaths that ecological disaster will bring" you're on thin ice, because it's not only entirely speculative, but it's based on erroneous assumptions (the resources dedicated to the smallpox vaccine were negligible compared to the numbers of lives it saved).
Production doesn't cause climate change; atmospheric carbon dioxide causes climate change. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station produces the annual CO2 of 5 round trip flights from New York to London, but the fossil fuel energy it replaces - 10TWH - is equivalent to taking 80 million cars off the road.
You're gradually narrowing your criteria for well-being to a personal definition that's impossible to prove. What's the point?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read