Population

[steve_bank]

Deer are normally kept in check by food and predators. In the 80s deer hunting was banned on Long Island the deer population became pests.


City pigeons have no predators. I have heard it proposed to introduce raptors.

In the news Malta is literally staving to death. Drought. Estimates are upwards of a million kids will starve in the Ethiopia and Sudan conflicts.

Nature in a sense is starting to correct an imbalance.

 

[Politesse]

I note that the Kaibab deer get slaughtered by bow, rifle, and muzzle-loader in successive waves of brutal bloodshed each Fall. Presumably T.G.G. Moogly at least is less bashful about admitting to the reality of what he's proposing, since this is the only concrete example he's provided as an example of effective population management, even when specifically asked for human examples.

 

[Politesse]

In the news Malta is literally staving to death. Drought. Estimates are upwards of a million kids will starve in the Ethiopia and Sudan conflicts.

Nature in a sense is starting to correct an imbalance.

And if they hand out condoms in the clinics of Valleta, maybe put up some billboards advocating family planning, the Maltese drought will end? Someone should tell the Maltese government that their problem is so easy to solve!

Oh, wait. Malta has had comprehensive and well-funded family planning initiatives for more than sixty years, and has the single lowest fertility rate in the entire European Union, to the point that the government is actually pretty damn alarmed about the tiny scale of its youngest generation and its ability to support their elders economically.

The decline of fertility in Malta: the role of family planning - PubMed

The decline of fertility in Malta: the role of family planning

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

‘Prioritise fertility education as several are leaving family planning too late’

Malta has EU’s lowest fertility rate

timesofmalta.com

Baffling!

It's almost as though reducing fertility doesn't prevent droughts.

Likewise, young Sudanese victims are being slaughtered by the thousands as a result of this war, so the idea that further population reduction would somehow help is laughable; they're already killing kids as fast as they possibly can, and it isn't reducing hunger. In fact, poverty and hunger are increasing every year that the conflict is prolonged, the exact opposite of what Malthusianism predicts.

But kudos for finally providing a concrete piece of evidence. You see how much more effective this would be over vague rhetoric, if in fact the empirical evidence supported a Malthusian read of the situations you cite rather than contradicting it.

 

[bilby]

Deer are normally kept in check by food and predators. In the 80s deer hunting was banned on Long Island the deer population became pests.


City pigeons have no predators. I have heard it proposed to introduce raptors.

In the news Malta is literally staving to death. Drought. Estimates are upwards of a million kids will starve in the Ethiopia and Sudan conflicts.

Nature in a sense is starting to correct an imbalance.

The 'Live Aid' famine of the 1980s was the last major famine in Africa. Since that famine, the Ethiopian population has trebled, and yet has had zero problems with mass hunger.

As an example of population not being the problem, you couldn't ask for a clearer example than Ethiopia, where it is clear that the problem was always tribalism, corruption, and the subsequent warfare.

Famine has gone away. Population hasn't. So population clearly wasn't the cause of the famine.

It's a much more diplomatically convenient scapegoat than actually blaming the real causes though.

 

[DBT]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

 

[steve_bank]

The economy, global now, is based on rampant consumerism. It is a tiger by the tail.

 

[bilby]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

 

[DBT]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant. Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems in terms of consumption rates and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

 

[bilby]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

 

[DBT]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

Take India as an example:

ABSTRACT:
Population in India has been regarded as not only the root cause of many of our economic problems but has also severely affected the environmental conditions in India. Population increased very fast in the post-independence period and It has added to all types of pollution namely air, water noise and at the same time has disturbed the cycle of rain, has prolonged the summer season in one way or the other. It has destroyed our biodiversity to a large extent, soil erosion has taken place, has added to the increased demand for energy resulting in overall temperature to rise. In fact, rising population and an urge to develop more to meet its needs has resulted into the emergence of such situation. No doubt, we have to control the population growth in a strict manner but the solution does not lie only with controlling the population. The environmental degradation in India has reached to such an extent that a direct and immediate attack on the environmental pollution has to be made.

India brought additional land under cultivation, expanded irrigation facilities and used increasingly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and high yielding hybrid seeds,-all collectively known as the New Agricultural strategy. In the sphere of industries, new industries have been set up, existing industries have been expanded and technology is being continuously upgraded, development of agriculture and industry has been accompanied by development and expansion of infrastructure-namely of power, transport and communication, banking and finance, etc. At the same time, because of growing population and high degree mechanization, mindless and ruthless exploitation of natural resources, we have degraded our physical environment. By physical environment we mean the whole complex of climate, soil, water and biotic factor on which we all subsist, and on which our entire agriculture and industrial development depends, Rapid economic development is actually turning India into a vast wasteland.

Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of India on 1st March 2001 was 1027 millions. At the time of independence, the country's population was 342 million. The number has multiplied three-fold in around five decades. The population growth of India from 1951 to 2001 is presented in Table 1. The total population size of India had grown from 361 million in 1951 to around 1027 million in 2001. The population of India increased by three times during the period of 1951-2001. The rural population of India has increased around two and half times from 298.7 million to 741.7 million during 1951-2001,....

 

[bilby]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

Take India as an example:

ABSTRACT:
Population in India has been regarded as not only the root cause of many of our economic problems but has also severely affected the environmental conditions in India. Population increased very fast in the post-independence period and It has added to all types of pollution namely air, water noise and at the same time has disturbed the cycle of rain, has prolonged the summer season in one way or the other. It has destroyed our biodiversity to a large extent, soil erosion has taken place, has added to the increased demand for energy resulting in overall temperature to rise. In fact, rising population and an urge to develop more to meet its needs has resulted into the emergence of such situation. No doubt, we have to control the population growth in a strict manner but the solution does not lie only with controlling the population. The environmental degradation in India has reached to such an extent that a direct and immediate attack on the environmental pollution has to be made.

India brought additional land under cultivation, expanded irrigation facilities and used increasingly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and high yielding hybrid seeds,-all collectively known as the New Agricultural strategy. In the sphere of industries, new industries have been set up, existing industries have been expanded and technology is being continuously upgraded, development of agriculture and industry has been accompanied by development and expansion of infrastructure-namely of power, transport and communication, banking and finance, etc. At the same time, because of growing population and high degree mechanization, mindless and ruthless exploitation of natural resources, we have degraded our physical environment. By physical environment we mean the whole complex of climate, soil, water and biotic factor on which we all subsist, and on which our entire agriculture and industrial development depends, Rapid economic development is actually turning India into a vast wasteland.

Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of India on 1st March 2001 was 1027 millions. At the time of independence, the country's population was 342 million. The number has multiplied three-fold in around five decades. The population growth of India from 1951 to 2001 is presented in Table 1. The total population size of India had grown from 361 million in 1951 to around 1027 million in 2001. The population of India increased by three times during the period of 1951-2001. The rural population of India has increased around two and half times from 298.7 million to 741.7 million during 1951-2001,....

Nobody's arguing that population hasn't grown in India.

Nobody's arguing that India hasn't seen problems with industrialisation leading to pollution and environmental degradation.

Nothing in the opinion piece you posted there constitutes evidence that population itself is the cause of the problems described; It's a case of correlation, but there's no evidence for causation (indeed it's quite possible that population growth is a consequence of the industrialisation that has also caused the environmental degradation; Population growth as a consequence of the underlying causes of the problems, rather than a cause of them).

India appears to be suffering similar problems to those seen in C19th England. Population wasn't the cause of those problems in England (English population has since multiplied almost fourfold, and yet the environmental problems from heavy industries have largely been solved); So why should we accept the assumption that it is the cause in India today?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

DBT,
You are making entirely too much sense. Our primitive limbic systems want thoughtless, emotional, unintegrated, dopamine-laced solutions. Get with the program already.

 

[bigfield]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Developed countries are overwhelmingly responsible for that "rampant consumption" despite only having a tiny fraction of the world's population. And those nations already have a stable birth rate. (Some are even declining.) So when you call for a reduction in birth rates, in practice you're only calling on developing countries to reduce their birth rates. But that's pointless because those people aren't the problem, even in growing numbers. Besides, there's nothing you can really do about it, anyway. Low birth rates depend on well-functioning infrastructure. That will take time to develop, and all we can do to make that happen is foster global peace and economic development.

 

[TSwizzle]

Developed nations birth rates may well be declining but like a lot of other undesirable tasks, reproduction has been outsourced to poorer parts of the world.

 

[Politesse]

Developed nations birth rates may well be declining but like a lot of other undesirable tasks, reproduction has been outsourced to poorer parts of the world.

So it is the poor you wish to target? DBT was a bit confused about this earlier.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Developed countries are overwhelmingly responsible for that "rampant consumption" despite only having a tiny fraction of the world's population. And those nations already have a stable birth rate. (Some are even declining.) So when you call for a reduction in birth rates, in practice you're only calling on developing countries to reduce their birth rates. But that's pointless because those people aren't the problem, even in growing numbers. Besides, there's nothing you can really do about it, anyway. Low birth rates depend on well-functioning infrastructure. That will take time to develop, and all we can do to make that happen is foster global peace and economic development.

So if birthrates fell across the board that would be a good thing, environmentally speaking.

 

[skepticalbip]

Developed nations birth rates may well be declining but like a lot of other undesirable tasks, reproduction has been outsourced to poorer parts of the world.

So it is the poor you wish to target? DBT was a bit confused about this earlier.

That's an interesting take you have there. You seem to be using "target" as a negative. I would think education and family planning programs "targeted" at poor and densely populated nations would be a positive thing. The resulting smaller families should make the current generation's life easier and give future generations more opportunity.

 

[DBT]

Developed nations birth rates may well be declining but like a lot of other undesirable tasks, reproduction has been outsourced to poorer parts of the world.

So it is the poor you wish to target? DBT was a bit confused about this earlier.

I made it clear that I wasn't targeting anyone, that the issue is a combination of population numbers and consumption rate - which does not automatically mean targeting the poor or culling people. The opposition is being emotional.

 

[DBT]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

Take India as an example:

ABSTRACT:
Population in India has been regarded as not only the root cause of many of our economic problems but has also severely affected the environmental conditions in India. Population increased very fast in the post-independence period and It has added to all types of pollution namely air, water noise and at the same time has disturbed the cycle of rain, has prolonged the summer season in one way or the other. It has destroyed our biodiversity to a large extent, soil erosion has taken place, has added to the increased demand for energy resulting in overall temperature to rise. In fact, rising population and an urge to develop more to meet its needs has resulted into the emergence of such situation. No doubt, we have to control the population growth in a strict manner but the solution does not lie only with controlling the population. The environmental degradation in India has reached to such an extent that a direct and immediate attack on the environmental pollution has to be made.

India brought additional land under cultivation, expanded irrigation facilities and used increasingly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and high yielding hybrid seeds,-all collectively known as the New Agricultural strategy. In the sphere of industries, new industries have been set up, existing industries have been expanded and technology is being continuously upgraded, development of agriculture and industry has been accompanied by development and expansion of infrastructure-namely of power, transport and communication, banking and finance, etc. At the same time, because of growing population and high degree mechanization, mindless and ruthless exploitation of natural resources, we have degraded our physical environment. By physical environment we mean the whole complex of climate, soil, water and biotic factor on which we all subsist, and on which our entire agriculture and industrial development depends, Rapid economic development is actually turning India into a vast wasteland.

Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of India on 1st March 2001 was 1027 millions. At the time of independence, the country's population was 342 million. The number has multiplied three-fold in around five decades. The population growth of India from 1951 to 2001 is presented in Table 1. The total population size of India had grown from 361 million in 1951 to around 1027 million in 2001. The population of India increased by three times during the period of 1951-2001. The rural population of India has increased around two and half times from 298.7 million to 741.7 million during 1951-2001,....

Nobody's arguing that population hasn't grown in India.

Nobody's arguing that India hasn't seen problems with industrialisation leading to pollution and environmental degradation.

Nothing in the opinion piece you posted there constitutes evidence that population itself is the cause of the problems described; It's a case of correlation, but there's no evidence for causation (indeed it's quite possible that population growth is a consequence of the industrialisation that has also caused the environmental degradation; Population growth as a consequence of the underlying causes of the problems, rather than a cause of them).

India appears to be suffering similar problems to those seen in C19th England. Population wasn't the cause of those problems in England (English population has since multiplied almost fourfold, and yet the environmental problems from heavy industries have largely been solved); So why should we accept the assumption that it is the cause in India today?

Sheer numbers count. The needs and want of eight billion people are far greater than the needs and wants of two billion people, as is their impact on the environment and its ecosystems. The article refers to both population growth in India and the impact of human activity.

 

[bilby]

Reducing population can only be done by reducing birth rates, or by killing people.

Rapidly reducing population cannot be done by reducing birth rates.

Calls for population reduction as a response to an immediate term crisis - climate change, for example - are therefore either very poorly thought through, or genocidal.

Rampant consumerism and other wasteful activities can be reduced along with lower birth rate as part of a multifaceted response.

Sure. And eating lard can cause weight loss, as part of a calorie controlled diet.

Population control (beyond what we have achieved already by the invention of reliable contraception that is in the woman's control) is neither necessary nor sufficient; If we do all those other things, population need not form any part of our consideration. It's irrelevant.

Not everyone thinks it is irrelevant.

No shit. But the evidence says that those who think it's relevant are wrong.

Whether it is or isn't depends on evidence based on the impact we are having on the environment and ecosystems

Yes, it does. Can you show me some evidence that it's relevant? The case of Ethiopia shows clearly that it wasn't relevant there in the 1980s, despite the prevailing opinion that it was.

in terms of consumption rates

We consume almost nothing. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that almost everything that was ever on Earth is still here, apart from our space probes and some gases stripped from the atmosphere by solar wind

and population numbers....which is not necessarily a matter of one or the other.

You can't sneak population numbers in here without assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate their relevance, not just assert it.

Take India as an example:

ABSTRACT:
Population in India has been regarded as not only the root cause of many of our economic problems but has also severely affected the environmental conditions in India. Population increased very fast in the post-independence period and It has added to all types of pollution namely air, water noise and at the same time has disturbed the cycle of rain, has prolonged the summer season in one way or the other. It has destroyed our biodiversity to a large extent, soil erosion has taken place, has added to the increased demand for energy resulting in overall temperature to rise. In fact, rising population and an urge to develop more to meet its needs has resulted into the emergence of such situation. No doubt, we have to control the population growth in a strict manner but the solution does not lie only with controlling the population. The environmental degradation in India has reached to such an extent that a direct and immediate attack on the environmental pollution has to be made.

India brought additional land under cultivation, expanded irrigation facilities and used increasingly chemical fertilizers, pesticides and high yielding hybrid seeds,-all collectively known as the New Agricultural strategy. In the sphere of industries, new industries have been set up, existing industries have been expanded and technology is being continuously upgraded, development of agriculture and industry has been accompanied by development and expansion of infrastructure-namely of power, transport and communication, banking and finance, etc. At the same time, because of growing population and high degree mechanization, mindless and ruthless exploitation of natural resources, we have degraded our physical environment. By physical environment we mean the whole complex of climate, soil, water and biotic factor on which we all subsist, and on which our entire agriculture and industrial development depends, Rapid economic development is actually turning India into a vast wasteland.

Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of India on 1st March 2001 was 1027 millions. At the time of independence, the country's population was 342 million. The number has multiplied three-fold in around five decades. The population growth of India from 1951 to 2001 is presented in Table 1. The total population size of India had grown from 361 million in 1951 to around 1027 million in 2001. The population of India increased by three times during the period of 1951-2001. The rural population of India has increased around two and half times from 298.7 million to 741.7 million during 1951-2001,....

Nobody's arguing that population hasn't grown in India.

Nobody's arguing that India hasn't seen problems with industrialisation leading to pollution and environmental degradation.

Nothing in the opinion piece you posted there constitutes evidence that population itself is the cause of the problems described; It's a case of correlation, but there's no evidence for causation (indeed it's quite possible that population growth is a consequence of the industrialisation that has also caused the environmental degradation; Population growth as a consequence of the underlying causes of the problems, rather than a cause of them).

India appears to be suffering similar problems to those seen in C19th England. Population wasn't the cause of those problems in England (English population has since multiplied almost fourfold, and yet the environmental problems from heavy industries have largely been solved); So why should we accept the assumption that it is the cause in India today?

Sheer numbers count.

So you keep asserting without evidence. But it's not at all clear that this is true, and there are good reasons to think that it's not.

The needs and want of eight billion people are far greater than the needs and wants of two billion people, as is their impact on the environment and its ecosystems.

That's simply not true.

If we could wave a magic wand and eliminate completely the environmental impact of the poorest seven billion people, while doubling the impact of the remainder, the environmental impact would almost double, despite population having been divided by four.

The article refers to both population growth in India and the impact of human activity.

Yes, and it importantly fails to show any causality between these two things, which is the point in question here.

Humans have an impact on the environment. But not, as far as we can see, in proportion to their numbers. The simplistic assumption that a basic headcount is sufficient to tell us the scale of the environmental impact is, as far as the evidence in this thread indicates, false.

If you want to show that it is in fact true, the only way to do that is to bring better evidence.