I find this kind of comment neither particularly amusing nor informative. Can you elaborate on those kinds of programs and their problems instead?
I find this tongue-in-cheek commentary very amusing, especially considering the article is a perfect example of describing feel-good bikeshedding, rather than addressing actual issues that were called out (e.g. large scale farming and loss of habitat due to human development)
If you want to read more, you can start at a very high level by Googling habitat loss and industrial agriculture, I guess?
Instead of “habitat loss” I prefer to call it “starvation prevention”.
I think "starvation deferment" is a more accurate phrase. To prevent starvation we need to address the tendency of humanity to reproduce, and to consume resources, past the limits of what we can safely and reliably sustain. Taking more and more land, and increasingly suppressing nature, to create more food on a finite Earth simply kicks the problem down the road.
Good news, the share of the world's land used for agriculture has been declining for 24 years.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-land-area-used-f...
Now that your objection (increased land use) has been disproven, I am sure you will come to change your outmoded, even Ehrlichian, views on human population size.
loading story #40267724
eye roll when are we gonna get over this Malthusian doomsaying.
Population is not the issue. Stewardship is the issue.
The fact we’ve basically eliminated fatality rates to kids under 5 is the the actual thing they’re trying to say. That kids survive at a rate in many places globally that is not sustainable to those places. Meanwhile we are told that we should limit how many kids, if any, we should have.
loading story #40268084
loading story #40269314
loading story #40266099
loading story #40267170
loading story #40267191
loading story #40266224