Malcolm, the prize for barrenness of modern intellectual thought has to go to this article. It's so bad I suspected satire, but there was no clever twist, just the argument that we live in a world without limits - except for misguided people who do see limits. If only they would stop insisting that world population is edging up against the limits of the world to support them the rosy future would bring endless growth.

Since the main tools that have extended those limits, (that really do exist) are widespread use of fossil fuels and those are being shown to have long term consequences and costs, the limitless growth you espouse looks more like living it up on credit you have no intention of repaying.

Ken said "It's so bad I suspected satire, but there was no clever twist"
I was thinking the exact same thing- its stereotypes are so excruciatingly vulgar, inaccurate, false and silly I was thinking of the Firth Factor- only Firth is always JOKING and I'm becoming convinced Malcolm isn't (or more specifically, he wants his audience to take it seriously). What frightens me is even Bill O Reilly doesn't make such alarming accusations about a (made-up) 'group'- yet there is somebody out there that is actually PAYING Malcolm to make this rubbish!
What's even more frightening is that this included the Labor Party and the Democrats!

I don't think I'll even bother with this one- it's just so stupid. The term 'anti-pop' -ie absolutely anyone that thinks population increase can be harmful- and therefore secretly wants nazi-style sterilization- blah- I won't even bother entertaining his rubbish.

But the main reason is, despite these pages and many across the net being completely inundated with helpful comments that DO explain and suggest attitudes and policies for population control that contradict what he, along with other nutters like Cheryl keep insisting we do- and furthermore a complete absence of any statements that DO fit into their crazy viewpoints, they keep falling on deaf ears- although as Ludwig said, they end up making themselves look bad on their own.

Keep up the good work guys!

Yes not much more needs to be said.

The best way to stifle argument about population sustainability is to mention Malthus, Nazism and other anti-human terminology and absolve yourself of the need for intelligent and meaningful debate.

I have not seen one person on this forum or elsewhere offer any anti-human solutions in the sustainable population debate other than those who have a religious fervour in maintaining unfettered population growth - despite diminishing arable land, water, resources and deforestation for urban development.

I know that I will get heaps of scorn for saying this but at the end of the day, it looks like Thomas Malthus might have known what he was talking about.

David

Yes, it seems unanimous - and across political leanings. This article's a crock.

Cheryl - you and your growthist cohorts need to find a much more credible mouthpiece. Or at least a sober one.

Senator Penny Wong has said the big problems in the talks were the targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions, how to verify that countries made good on their climate promises, and how to finance poorer countries to tackle global warming. (Well, we all knew that before the talks started) Ms Hand though, Australia’s Official Person, in her speech, also drew attention to the problem in deciding what legal form a new climate deal should take – a hot topic which relates to the future of the Kyoto protocol.”

Well, nice try…to get Nations together again after Geneva and the war to end all wars in 1918, then the U.N.after another war to end all wars in 1945 but history has clearly shown that there is no such thing as obtuse Nations doing anything together for the common good least of all in good faith. More so when rising population with rising affluence become consumers of manufactured goods from polluting processes. The U.N. says another 2.9 billion by 2040, an increase of one third. One third, Penny Wong, one third. Therein lies the problem of trying to create a new World Order.

If the causes of climate change, are indeed man made, then the answer is unclear and requires the sacrifice of vested interests. Legislating the ETS is Australia’s example, but if it is the forever changing elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun , according to Josh my 12 year old, then the answer is clear..adapt to it as all other life on Earth has adapted. But the melting of the Ice Caps raising the sea levels before they begin to freeze again create a problem for some of the Pacific Nations and the Mayor of Glenelg. This is the area to prepare for a different future on higher ground….. in rented space for as long as it takes?. In the meantime it appears that Copenhagen is all about money.