Yep, and my last word for Cheryl is that 'asinine comments' that supposedly fail to properly evaluate the subject presented would be a leaf taken from someone else's book.

Very apt King Hazza.

There is a difference between anti-population (inference anti-people) and anti-overpopulation which only serves to increase anti-human activity eg. famine, civil war, environmental degradation, depletion of resources, lack of water.

You don't have to be an Einstein to work out that more people need more resources, technology and innovation is vital but can only go so far.

It is not misanthropic to control our numbers. Any child would understand we can't keep growing our numbers and expect our species to ultimately survive. It is logical, and actually essential and in our interests. Overcrowding and over population will cause wars, conflict, famine, loss of natural resources, loss of arable land, extinctions and destruction of ecosystems. As creatures on top of the food chain and dominance, we need self-regulation. Kangaroos are capable of controlling their own numbers so it shouldn't be impossible for us too.

Well said:

King Hazza
Pelican
VivKay

The effects of overcrowding and over population should be obvious to all. But not, apparently, to some.

To those who favour humans increasing population size indefinitely, please present the infrastructure, resources and expanse that will support us all.

Cheryl almost perfectly matches the Wikipedia definition of a troll, showing heavy reliance on name-calling, unsubstantiated allegations, and hit-and-run tactics. She shows little interest in the truth or in rational argument. She doesn't even appear to be very interested in convincing people that she is right, probably because she knows that the evidence is against her. When (rarely) she does say something substantive and someone presents a counterargument or evidence against her position, she does not reply, preferring to disappear, shift her ground, or resort to more abuse.

When she gets people to waste time on her, she achieves her objective, which is to poison and derail the debate. It isn't clear why she is doing this, although it is easy to imagine financial or ideological motives. The best strategy may be to simply ignore her, at least until someone gets fed up enough to sue her for defamation. "Don't feed the troll."

The intellectual perversity of such comments can only be understood in the context of a profound retreat from reason. They have junked the rule of evidence, objectivity and rationality in favour of fantasy, irrationality and up-side down thinking.

The above comments do not even pretend to hide their crypto-fascist views and their arguments, so far as they are arguments, are as sterile as the sterlisation programs they propound.

They are environmental ideologues who, like religious fanatics, try to wrench their 'evidence' to fit an ideological mold. Not only is their environmental extremism inimical to reason, it sacrifices truth to power as it attacks those who try to uphold the formal rules of logic and argument in the face of dogma.

They have failed to attack the article in question and have turned on the commentators. Some have now realised that the SPA arguments are anti-people. Too late. They have even ridiculously flagged defamation action re my comments. Now they want to silence comment. You'd also better look up the concepts of 'imputation' and 'identification'.

While OLO must necessarily be a broad church of opinion, what we have witnessed here is the kind of pack mentality and fear mongering more typical of the mob.