Media bias is getting a lot of lip service these days, but the kind of bias I’m writing about is not the intentional, obvious, or product-of-paranoia bias you might hear U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump complaining about. The kind of bias I’m concerned about is dangerous because it’s NOT so obvious.

I have a real problem with population growth maintaining its undeserved place on the mantle of trophies for city success. Cities don’t grow their population in an alternative universe. They grow in the same overpopulated world of 7.4 billion currently killing our planet.

A growing number of philosophers, ethicists, environmentalists and potential mothers are suggesting that moderating reproduction is a logical, responsible, and surprisingly effective means of curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Last week we heaped high praise on NPR (National Public Radio in the U.S.) for running a story about this.

Not surprisingly, that report – and its contents – struck fear in the hearts of some. Let’s look at some of the responses.

I’d like to thank New York Times’ senior economics correspondent Neil Irwin for acknowledging a few days ago that:

We’re in a Low-Growth World. How Did We Get Here?

Yes, we are in a low-growth world. That’s because we are in a post-growth world! Unfortunately, I don’t think Irwin gets that, as he went on to characterize history-making slow growth rates as a problem to be solved,

Warren Buffett makes the Wall of Shame today for – apparently – failing to understand limits to growth. One would hope such a smart and successful businessperson would be aware that the wealth “creation” of the last 80 years has come at a very heavy price on our ecosystems and natural resources, and cannot possibly continue.