A few comments . . .
1) Yes, right-of-center suppositions are detrimental in and of
themselves. They derive from beliefs about human worth vs. state power,
and the conclusions demonstrate these beliefs. Not that "left-wing"
viewpoints are _necessarily_ good alternatives, but many or most of them
2) The view that high-yield (read capital- and chemical-intensive)
agriculture can ameliorate the effects of some population bomb (the
existence of which is also subject to debate) ignores that high-yield ag
creates conditions which lead to increased birth-rates. This ag creates
poverty and concentration of wealth and power, leading to reduced
education and opportunities, leading to exactly the kind of increased
uncertainty which fosters large families.
I have only had time to skim the report in question; I'll sit down with
it later. On first glance, 'though, it is one of the more retrograde
pieces I have seen in a while. Not only
do I disagree with it politically, I disagree with it academically, and
don't find it a useful contribution to the discussion of ag
sustainability except to demonstrate how far we still have to go.