It isn't a fallacy. The question is the following: you have no choice other than disposing of a large portion of the population. How do you do it - randomly or you pick the ones that will be most "useful" after this and keep them? Clearly, you're better off in the second case. Now, what has made our species so successful is out ability to transmit information transgenerationally, this is the very basis of our civilization. Which means that if you're faced with such a dilemma, preservation of knowledge and expertise should be a priority. For obvious reasons. This does not mean scientists and academics only, it means all kinds of expertise and knowledge, including specialists in manual labor tasks without which our way of life would not be possible, but the people to keep will still be dominated by the highly educated. And I think, everybody would agree that a highly educated world is a much better world than a world full of ignorance, such as the one we live in now.
Give me some arguments against this, you will be hard pressed to so.
Now, so it turns out, not at all surprisingly, that the small number of people who do recognize the overpopulation threat belongs predominantly to the group of highly educated people one would have to keep alive were such an event become unavoidable. Which is what I was referring to
