| You're awfully demanding for answers when you're not forthcoming with them yourself. I'd asked first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28904716 You're also showing a pattern of deflecting and projecting rather than addressing the specific issues addressed by others. On Wikipedia: I link to it as a general reference. Again, there is a long and large literature, the article is just one of numerous jumping-off points. There are others, such as Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=population%20overshoot&... Arguing based on unknowables ("future innovation is non linear and hence unpredictable utilizing current trends") is literally an appeal to ignorance. Arguing from the point that a premise is unknown and unknowable does not prove conclusions premised on that premise being true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance As an alternative to the hivemind, Locke: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/439/locke0417.htm You are putting words in my mouth regarding what you're again fabricating as another's argument. I said no such thing, that is again your fiction. I'll merely respond that in advocating unsustainable population overshoot that you are committing many billions to lives of poverty and misery. And committing the fallacy of composition to boot. Burden of proof relates to factual claims, not moral ones. Those are ultimately goverened by the is-ought relation. And if you'll read elsewhere in this thread, I've actually already addressed your specious and repeated question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28904666 Again, I await your answer to my first question, though with low expectations. Serious question: Are you commenting to try to better understand a question and viewpoints about it, or only to promote your own views and cast aspersions? Because your comments strongly suggest the latter. |