Java Jive wrote
John Hall wrote

Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

Not necessarily. All you can say for certain is that
that particular apocalypse hasn't happened YET!

We can also say that while famine was common in the century or two
before say 1945, we don't see that anymore except where the place has
imploded in the most obscene levels of civil war and civil chaos or have
been stupid enough to let some fool like Kim Jong Il rule the roost.

And even with the first of those, famine could still be eliminated
if we chose to air drop food into those areas instead of having
our own people distributing the food in those areas.

But then again, it depends on what particular apocalypse you define

Erlich didn't predict an apocalypse and neither did Malthus.

... For example, is extinction at the hands of humankind of
a great many of the other species on earth an apocalypse?

Nothing like what Erlich or Malthus go so completely wrong.

Clearly it is for the species concerned, as well as others
that rely on them, possibly even including ourselves.

We don't rely on any particular species anymore and never have.

I probably wouldn't use the word 'apocalypse' to describe it,
though, but words like 'calamity' and 'disaster', definitely.

But nothing like what Erlich and Malthus
were so mindlessly hyperventilating about.

Malthus was saying essentially the same thing
in 1798, so it's certainly not a new idea.

Quite. Predicters of doom and gloom, whether religiously or
scientifically based, can always say: "It just hasn't happened yet!"

But when what they are predicting like famine is in fact
not seen anymore except etc and where it is still seen
can be quite readily fixed by say just executing some fool
like Kim Jong Il, they still have a problem with their claim.

Religious predictions of the end of the world are different in
the sense that the same considerations don't apply to them.

Human over-population is a problem, no matter how you look at it.

But its starting to look like it may be fixing itself and has
done already in the modern first world and much of the
second world now that birth rates are dropping world
wide except where they are already right down in the noise.

It may well be that if the general population of the world doesn't
choose to do something to curb it while acting as private individuals,
then governments will have to act forcibly to curb it.

Not if it ends up limiting itself without any action by
govt or any forcible action by individuals as it has in
the modern first world and much of the second world.

Not one modern first world country is even self replacing
now if you take out immigration, not even the ones that
were a real problem in the past population wise like Ireland.