But you are chiding those who are exercising caution in how to respond on this issue for not believing the 'experts', like Ehrlich and Gore, and for not being sufficiently alarmed.

Not at all. If you exercised caution, or pointed out flaws in the data or arguments, that would be great. What you're doing is issuing blanket denials that there is an issue at all. And I never once cited Ehrlich or Gore as experts, which leads me to believe you must be confusing me with someone else. I suggest you find that guy--you may win an argument with him.

The rest of the world did NOT take the drastic action of forced sterilizations and forced abortions and to a very great extent that worked, too.

I think you need to ask the Ethiopians how well it worked, for instance. In much of the world, the birth rates slowed naturally. In much of Europe, for instance, they're below replacement rates, and in the US they're not much above. No action was required or indicated there. In the high growth rate countries, those whose governments (like Kenya's--see below) who made an effort to reduce the rates of growth have gotten a better handle on the problem and are doing better as a result. Just pretending there was no problem was not a smart move.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wor...aigns.html

No, you simply asserted that it supported you. I provided counter examples to China and India, namely the rest of the world, which did not take such drastic action and still lowered population growth.

Where the need was greatest, the most aggressive actions were taken. Where they were not, stresses and hardship followed. Contrary to your assertion, many nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America made it government policy to reduce population growth. It was a smart thing to do. Most of the time, simple measures like giving women more control over their fertility were most effective. Mistakes were certainly made--the Indian experience is an example--but these nations did and do not share your blithe dismissal of overpopulation.

Contrary to Ehrlich's predictions...

Where is his post? I'm definitely not in the Malthus camp. I'm an optimist and a technophile. I think that if we're smart, we can avoid catastrophes. Talking to people like you makes me wonder sometimes, though. We do need to exercise intelligence and foresight. Pretending that more people won't be harder to feed is just foolish. While we may be able to feed everyone with unchecked population growth (though fortunately we are checking it), it does exert a drag on standards of living if growth is too fast, and fosters other social problems. All resources will last longer, and there'll be more for each person, if we can continue the current trends of reducing population growth. We have governments to thank for a large part of that reduction.