Thanks for the information, Mornche :) (unusual name - may I ask the origin?)
I'm interested in what you said, and I think it is very relevant to considering the decreasing and increasing of a population. Could you point me towards further links so I can do more research?
I don't intend to get into a debate over this, although I realise I'm joining in on the tail-end of one. My point was only to provide a link to a Catholic viewpoint which I thought went through the various emotional and moral factors associated with using contraception in a kind of introductory, easy-to-understand fashion. I'm no expert on agricultural techniques, and I daresay Dr. Smith isn't either - I think her point is that we are able to sustain a growing population. There are techniques, there are resources - the key is managing them, just as you say. I think what she is saying is very relevant in terms of the content and message, although I'm sure there are areas to disagree on in terms of what kind of resources we can use in 2008/9 and beyond that.
Furthermore, the western world doesn't have the necessary birth rate for society to replace the elderly and retired in the workforce. Socially, we need more children. There's no getting around that fact. If you consider the vast amounts of wealth wasted in other areas by governments, I'm certain the wealth of the western world would manage to find ways to preserve, manage and develop new resources for the most important thing we can offer for the preservation of the human race - our children.
However, I'd be interested to know what you think of her other correlations - the emotional impact on marriages for example, or perhaps the consideration that contraception has contributed to a culture in which sex has been divorced from its emotional and physical impacts, which has contributed to an exponential increase in teenage pregnancy rate, abortion rate, STI rise, sexual coercion, women treated more as (the phrase is a cliché now!) sex objects.
Or - without this sounding like a 'call to arms' challenge - does the fact that you disagree with some of information on food resources render the consideration of all her other points invalid for you? This is what I'm getting from your post. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Or, in order to keep on topic: what about considering what Dr Smith says in the context of Jane Studdock and THS?