cohenite,
Now you have gone right off the subject again. You earlier gave a link to a leading agricultural scientist and i pointed out that his views on world population supported mine.

You say 'Hilarious Banjo:

"As distinct from you, Yabby and I believe the UN and governments should be doing far more to reduce birth-rates, especially in those countries subject to famine."

Why is that hilarous? That simply says that Yabby and I disagree with what the UN and governments are doing. They fail to address the issue of world population and so do all the talkfests that have been held about AGW.

Now I will not speak for Yabby on this but I would not mind if we pulled out of the UN altogether. People in developing countries are in far greater danger of starving than they are of being affected by climate change. The UN fails to address that and continues with programmes like the World Food Programme, which is merely treating the symptions. You have already been given examples of how governments, and UN, could act, by following on from what Iran and Thailand has done.

I remain an AGW sceptic and I do not believe that we have the capability to feed an ever growing world population. The countries that are most subject to famine will be the ones to suffer first.

*Women in the most fertile nations do not have a choice.*

So give them a choice, Cohenite. When did Australia spend a part of
its 4 billion aid on doing exactly that? That is exactly what I
am lobbying for. Money is the issue, time and time again. We
spend billions, but due to religious lobbying, not on family
planning in the third world. Thus my outrage and suggestion that
Australia should change. If enough voters agree it will happen,
despite the Catholic lobby.Harradine is now retired.

Fish sanctuaries are indeed a good idea and for good reasons. We
have so plundered the oceans for fish, that last time I checked,
only about one sixth of the fish were left, which existed just
200 years ago. We wiped out the cod with overfishing and many other
fish species are on the edge. Fish sanctuaries give fish somewhere to
breed. We are paying a heavy price for all this plundering. The
Nomura jellyfish invades the Japanese coast, as they caught all its
predators, which kept it in check. Ecosystems collapse when you
overfish. There are countless examples.

I remind you that the so called "fertile Cresent", is not so frigging
fertile anymore. Farming without replacing nutrients, lands up with
clapped out soils that have basically been mined and eventually stop
producing.

Now you suggest that we plunder every bit of earth where other species
live, to make way for ever more humans, who are breeding like rabbits
to suit the religious lobby. What kind of world do you want to leave
for your great grandkids? Just wall to wall concrete

"You earlier gave a link to a leading agricultural scientist and i pointed out that his views on world population supported mine."

No, I did not. I referred to Borlaug to show the point about sustainability made in this article was wrong. In fact the very notion of sustainability is stupid; presumably what was sustainable before Borlaug, or indeed any advance in agricultural production was less than AFTER that advance.

The very notion of a limit to resource extraction has been disproved time after time; Ehrlich and his ilk are never right in their prognistications. Personally I think they have no confidence in human ingenuity; they are pessimists, nothing more.

"I would not mind if we pulled out of the UN altogether."

That I can agree with; I think the influence of the UN is pernicious; it is a flawed concept, that is all the nations of the Earth discussing issues and democratically solving them. It is flawed for 2 reasons.

Firstly because many of the UN nations are themselves failed states, undemocratic and oppressive which push grievances, usually against the West.

Secondly, the UN itself is now a player; the largest, most influential bureaucracy on Earth with its own survival uppermost in its actions. It has no efficacy and its involvement in world issues is a record of abysmal failure.

In fact, it could be argued that the UN, through its support of AGW and interference with the availability of cheap reliable energy to 3rd world nations is actually exacerbating population pressures.

I don't think you and I are in much disagreement here.

Johnny J,
Mate, Ban Ki Moon and the whole bloody UN are the ones spruiking Earth's finite and rapidly partitioned and depleted resources in favour of first selfish worlders like us.

My point is we can use this against the UN. Illegitime non carborundum!

We have a just case to ENJOY now and let future cretins deal with the evolutionary pressures without raising a wrinkle.

Get with the Program or the UN will make everyone equal and hold resources in reserve for future eaters. And you know what that means for men .. even less nookie than we get now. And if we wear the ladies out then they can have all the time out they want with their babies as has always been the case whether in the first world or the last.

Get it?

Relax, enjoy, shut the F up!

Cohenite,

A few problems with your theory:

. There is not the means available to lift all the world's population to prosperity, high education and true freedom of choice - not now, and probably not in the foreseeable future - not at current population levels;

. Farmers in the developed and developing world have been employing 'Green' techniques to improve productivity and sustainability concurrently - planting trees to counter soil salinity and to protect crops from drying out and wind-blown erosion (also to protect stock), and using no-till, fencing off remnant woodlands to maintain water quality, and moving to more organic farming methods for controlling insect pests, for maintaining soil fertility and the micro-organisms contributing to that fertility, and employing rational grazing - all of which reduces usage of costly (and sometimes environmentally detrimental) herbicides, pesticides, stock drenches, and synthetic fertilisers = Win, win;

. Excessive exploitation of both agricultural land and the natural environment brought about by excessive populations in many developed and developing countries has destroyed both the environment and overall food production, leading directly to the famine and starvation we are seeing now, and have for some years been seeing, in those countries;

. You criticize the establishment of marine reserves, but it is these (specifically selected) which provide an essential breeding ground to maintain those very fish stocks which are currently being plundered far beyond sustainability - better a smaller sustainable catch than a total collapse;

. We can only protect that within our means in order to ensure a sustainable future, but the dilemna is that outside the area of our influence others are plundering stocks on land and sea without mercy - and that is why the world needs a strong UN with the right 'plan' and the backing of the world community as a whole;

. One must live in concert with nature, or perish;

One life raft.

(Lesson: Mao got rid of sparrows, and caused an insect plague. Quick fix = new problem.)(We imported cane toads.)

cohenite,
OK we agree on the limitations of the UN and we agree, possibly, that AGW is incorrect and that any climate change is a natural occurance over which we have no,or little, control.

But you did refer me to Borlaug and from reading his material, and his obit, it is obvious he had similar thoughts to me about over population.
Obviously you admire his work, so take note. From his obit. "He was frustrated throughout his life that governments did not do more to tackle what he called “the population monster” by lowering birth rates".

Humans developed, through their ingenuity, the means to control birthrates and we should make far better use of that. My object here is not some ideal of green 'sustainability' but simply to reduce the number affected by famine and starvation.

I think you are very wrong if you think that technological advances in food production and distribution can keep pace with the rising world population.