“The perennial cry: we need to talk about climate change. And this week, with world leaders in Paris, we have been. But only up to a point. For the likely impact of the rising global population is almost entirely absent, not only from the debate about climate change, but also from that about loss of biological diversity, food and water security, disease, pollution and energy.” From: www.theguardian.com
GR: There are reasonable alternative suggestions for our main problem, but the fundamental fact is that all of them–climate-change, food production, over-consumption, wildlife loss–would be more manageable if there were fewer people. Perhaps climate-change is the scariest because it has the potential to wipe out most living creatures on Earth. From a wildlife point of view, however, this potential makes climate change desirable for its potential to eliminate the human species. It’s a gamble. Winning requires two things. First, global warming eradicates humans, and second no equally destructive species arises in their place.
GarryRogers Nature Conservation 
AS Paul Ehrlich said “whatever your cause, it’s a lost cause without population control.” (or something close to this). Homo sapiens is unable to come to grips with its own destructive fecundity. We deny climate change, and our explosive population numbers, which continue to extinguish the natural systems. It would be beneficial to the planet if our species could go without destroying the Earth’s Biosphere; but it is very doubtful, unless a virus hits us, & leaves the rest of life alone.
http://www.foranimals.org
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said Rosemary. I’ve noticed that there is a new microbe nibbling at the edges of the news that is said to be resistant to all our antibiotics. It was found recently in China, and I think it has now appeared in Africa. So in a dark sense, there’s hope!
LikeLike