There are 7 billion people alive today. If we can't produce enough food for them all, people will starve. There's nothing false about that dichotomy, only your evasion.

So if the african, muslim countries, and india adopted a one child policy tomorrow like china did, how many people would starve? versus your proposal of continuing mad science and putting it in our bodies.

We have 1 billion undernourished today (note that there were only 1 billion in the whole world in 1804). And most of the rest of us are getting diabetes due to massive sugar and starch intake, promised by science as being 'good for us'. We also have mercury in our fish, hormones in our cows, insecticides in our veggies, fracking chemicals in our groundwater to get natural gas to make synthetic fertilizer, chemicals fed to pigs to make them grow faster (in the US anyway, china doesn't even allow that crap to be sold)...

So why exactly do some people still think malthus was wrong? How exactly can some people defend population growth?

How exactly are you going to prove this shit is 'SAFE'? When scientists for 50 years haven't even been able to prove if animal fat is healthy for us or not? And we have been eating that for a million years? Do you understand 'First, Do No Harm?'

There are seven million people alive today. If tomorrow there is not enough food in the world to feed seven million people, some of them will starve. How can you keep evading this?

Even if we're talking about staying at 7 billion vs. scaling to 10 billion, your first solution is to forcibly eliminate the reproductive rights of the browner-skinned half of the world population?

"Eliminate Reproductive Rights"? Seriously? Do you normally watch television pundits and debates where talking points and demagoguery like that are taken seriously? Where you put words in people's mouths? That's the second time you've done that, so I'm done. You aren't interested in actually discussing this.

I was blessed with two sons and got myself fixed (note: 2 kids is below replacement rate), so I've done far more good for this planet than you will _ever_ understand.

You have twice as many kids as you're willing to allow to half the world's population?

When you start the discussion by saying we shouldn't even produce enough food to feed all seven billion people in the world and refuse to acknowledge the consequences of that, you're being dishonest. Maybe I should have asked: how many people should we produce food for, and how do we choose which people don't get food?

I'm in favor of reducing the ecological impact of agriculture, improving food quality, and reducing population growth. But you can't just ignore the requirements that we actually need to feed everyone who's already alive, and we shouldn't selectively implement coercive measures on people in other countries we are unwilling to impose on ourselves. It turns out there's a lot you can do within those constraints. That's the conversation worth having. I'm not going to entertain the notion that organic food is worth starving people and selectively depopulating entire continents over.