How so?

See my other comment:

The Limits to Growth (the linked text) led directly to the one-child policy in China and forced sterilization in India. Its supposedly scientific recommendations were adopted by the UN, the World Bank, western aid organizations, and the governments of those countries, with evil consequences.

Further reading:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1506469.stm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-30040790

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Fine, I’ll elaborate.

The Limits to Growth (the linked text) led directly to the one-child policy in China and forced sterilization in India. Its supposedly scientific recommendations were adopted by the UN, the World Bank, western aid organizations, and the governments of those countries, with evil consequences.

For further reading on the ethical implications, see below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1506469.stm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-30040790

Linking the book The Limits to Growth and its message to the effects of the one-child policy is tenuous at best. The evolution of China in the 20th century is incredibly complex, and the effects of a single policy ocurring over decades cannot be directly caused by a single book.

Yes, this is a much better (for HN) comment. The one point I'd still make is that the word 'evil' in a comment like this is a bit of a jump to internet-drama and that detracts from the information you're providing. It's better to use more neutral language and let the reader draw their own conclusions. (I'm not saying evil doesn't exist—just making a point about internet thread dynamics.)