Malthusian Disaster as a Good Thing

This is Thomas Robert Malthus (or, more correctly, a drawing of the now dead Malthus). He famously connected his name to the concept that by reducing widespread death we would increase the population.  The increased population would collapse under its own increasing burdens, for example needing food and water.I'm struck by how the most liberal folks are actually the most conservative on most fundamental topics.  Consider Global Warming.  The people most worried about warming and the changes it will bring are labeled Liberals and Progressives.  Fair enough.  The folks most against it are the Conservatives.  In very general terms, Conservatives are people who resist change, Liberals embrace change.We're not going to stop Global Warming; let's just be honest about that.  We're awesome polluters -- best in the solar system by far.  We suck at anything resembling discipline.  Most people cannot be troubled to recycle, so getting them to invest in electric cars or stop riding jets is laughable.  So, take as a given that all the discussion about how to stop Global Warming is merely wasted frenetic energy which could be better spent inventing tastier popcorn for Ted -- especially caramel popcorn -- especially from Rural Route Popcorn in Wisconsin, a place I both frequent and warmly endorse.Global Warming is going to raise ocean levels, and perhaps plunge us into a global snowball.  Fair enough.  Seems like our species survived the last ice age.  We'll probably survive and adapt to the new climate.  I'm sure that a fairly large number of people will die due to lack of food, water, and adequate shelter.  But they are going to die anyway, sometime.My point is this.  The Conservatives, who should be resisting change at all costs are pushing hard to make Western Pennsylvania ocean-front property (and, at the same time, completely de-valuing their property on the Jersey shore, which will be a terrific fishing spot in the not too distant future (fish love structure -- I imagine fish will absolutely adore the boardwalk, for example).At the same time, Liberals, who should be pushing change, are doing everything they can to hold onto the status quo.  It's a fool's errand, but that's not really important.  Liberals want the river banks to stay where they are, and the shoreline to keep being exactly as valuable as it is today.  Stop Global Warming, and keep the status quo.This seems backwards to me.  For my own part, I embrace climate change.  I've lived almost my whole life in cold places -- so it would be hard to make me scared with: "if you don't curb your carbon footprint, you will have to live year-round in sub-zero temperatures."  I have Carhartt coats and Filson hats; and every since I lost a bunch of weight, I have to wear them in July so I don't shiver.  And I want New York wiped out (at least the banking, insurance, and associated institutions).  Save the non-banker and non-insurance folks.  But as for the rest of it, I say: give the fish some more structure.  Texas and Oklahoma were at the bottom of the inland sea just a few million years ago.  I wouldn't shed too many tears about losing the oil companies.  A fresh start, where we rebuild the crumbling power grid, highways, and upheave things like auto manufacturers and phone carriers -- all this seems like a good idea to me.  I like change, especially big change.  I like big change because it is synonymous with opportunity.So, how about we embrace Global Warming?