I agree with the overpopulation issue, but I think its a stretch to tie it to cycling. Why not advances in health care, new drugs, mismanaged welfare, anitquated views on birth control by religious groups, or something more relevant.
Not to be morbid, but I don't see any consideration for a "cycling related deaths" adjustment for this long-living population of cyclists. I just view the cycling link as reckless conjecture, but coming from Wharton, some relatively intelligent people might just buy it.
I'm just venting.