Demographers call this evolution the demographic transition. All countries go through it in their own time. It’s a hallmark of human progress: In a country that has completed the transition, people have wrested from nature at least some control over death and birth. The global population explosion is an inevitable side effect, a huge one that some people are not sure our civilization can survive. But the growth rate was actually at its peak just as Ehrlich was sounding his alarm. By the early 1970s, fertility rates around the world had begun dropping faster than anyone had anticipated. Since then, the population growth rate has fallen by more than 40 percent.
The composition of the Council was also subject to controversy. Kass was accused of "stacking the deck" with philosophers, scientists, and public intellectuals likely to oppose "unfettered medical research in the area of stem cells, therapeutic cloning, and reproductive cloning. Given that fact, researchers had better worry a lot about what the Council is likely to recommend to the president."  Critics also charged that Kass eliminated those who disagreed with him, such as Elizabeth Blackburn and William May , and replacing them with opponents of cloning.   Kass replied to these criticisms by saying that the Council was more intellectually diverse than prior bioethics commissions precisely because it included opponents of abortion.  (Previous commissions had "excluded representatives of the right to life movement ."  ) Also, the council members Robert George, Francis Fukuyama and James Q. Wilson debated with stark disagreement their opposing points of view on the biological status of the human embryo and came to no agreed conclusions.  Since Bush had deliberately created the Council to debate and clarify the issues without necessarily reaching consensus, Kass said that he welcomed disagreement within the Council: "This council is easily the most intellectually and ethically diverse of the bioethics commissions to date. We have worked with mutual respect while not papering over our differences. No one who has attended any of our meetings or read the transcripts can believe that we do anything but serious and careful work, without regard to ideology, partisan politics or religious beliefs." 
Finally, speakers should consider time limits when choosing an informative speech topic. A topic should be covered thoroughly enough that the audience feels as if most of their questions on the topic have been answered. On the other hand, a tight time restriction may prevent the speaker from adequately covering a very intricate topic. When time is limited, a subject which requires lengthy explanation should be avoided. The audience should leave an informative speech feeling as if they’ve gained new insight on a topic. It is good if they are interested in doing their own research to learn more about the subject, but they should never leave the presentation feeling confused or unclear about what they have just heard.