Anyone else out there who doesn't get it ?

Indy, sorry, but seriously, I'm not trying to be awkward, I am not getting your point.
I can only ask, if you could clarify for me, because I am wanting to understand the topic in question.
Thanks.

ALTRAV,
Here is an explanation !

https://divermag.com/letter-to-the-women-of-the-world-by-hans-hass/

Attenborough unfortunately links death of Polar bears with climate Change, instead of the facts. The bears were not starving as he claimed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rkv-ItznBE&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2VF-k1xa3CG7XTkLShTx3QmSKGrpXopGSlCN4V22sJEEboQVAPrC_RvmY

From NASA report on Antarctica: "A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Indy, thanks for that.
I'm glad I asked, and now having read it I find I have been of the same mind for many years.
I have written on OLO before about the stats of having one, two or three, children, and the effects each has/will have on future generations.
I remember saying that at one child per couple we would see a reduction in population world wide immediately.
With two children there would be little to show for it and any decline in population would take far too long and I doubt would be of any real effect in real terms.
Having three children would only feed the overpopulation problem and keep it going at an exponential rate.
So given that one child is the short term or quickest solution, it would seem the obvious solution, to curb the overpopulation problem.
Unfortunately, good luck trying to sell the idea to third world countries and it's people.
Let's face it, Europeans are not the problem, in fact they are reproducing less and less with each generation.
Unlike other countries, who by virtue of religion or beliefs are reproducing at an alarming rate.
We in the western culture are hypocrites for facilitating the third world.
Nature dictates that if the people are starving to death, children and adults, we should not interfere.
I know this sounds callous to all you jelly brains, but if you stop thinking subjectively and instead think objectively, you too will reason that if a country cannot feed itself, it has too many people, and if left to their own devices and resources, they would die back to a number which can be sustained by their own means.
So we are doing them a dis-service by sending aid or money, it is of no use and an absolutely ridiculous act of futility.