Yes; if your thinking is shaped by the enlightened philosophy of English cleric Mr Thomas Robert Malthus prophesied 2 centuries ago. If you see people merely as food eating morons their increasing number is clearly a burden. In his 1798 piece Essay on the Principle of Population Malthus observed, “…in nature plants and animals produce far more offspring than can survive, and that Man too is capable of overproducing if left unchecked. Malthus concluded that unless family size was regulated, man's misery of famine would become globally epidemic and eventually consume Man.”

Whenever philosophers and scientists extrapolate observations from "plants or animals" to the human world deficiencies are in-built into the logic. Because humans are far too superior compared with plants or animals in every aspect -- whether we like it or not!

If Malthus' ideas survived and found prominence, a large part of the credit goes to the elite class of Western societies which found a rationale for their supposed supremacy over ordinary and poor people. Most of the class and race bias in the Western world most definitely originated from his philosophical ideas.

Malthus was concerned about the decline of living conditions in the 19th century England and argued that growing population is a burden on nature’s resources. He also noted that the lower classes were bearing more children; therefore, he suggested that poor families should only produce as many children as they can support. Why he did not think of helping poor become rich is not known; probably he had no interest in uplifting the poor despite being a cleric.

Given his observations and the socioeconomic conditions at that time, his conclusions were certainly logical. What is wrong is to apply them in today’s world by ignoring the premises on which he said what he said. In fact, Malthus's ill founded ideas shaped much of the aid politics during the mid 20th century.