I can't remember when an article caused normally sane people to run in circles, scream and shout. We have people accusing the author of being drunk, mad, Catholic, not understanding exponential functions, and even one poster coming out in favour of Malthuse - who got the maths wrong and has since been discredited beyond recall.

Many of the poorer nations recently walked out of Copenhagen, I suggest because of the type of incredible white Anglo comments here. You want to cut both consumption and population but you believe in capitalism. Try again.

You want to cut population but have no policies on how to do it. You're talking about cutting population but not mentioning contraceptives or what you'd do if people, such as a nation, said, 'no way.' Hmmm. The only exponential function I can see here is spluttering ignorance because King has trampled over your intellectual weed garden. Welcome to the real world.

You'd have to be a dyed-in-the-wool growthist to find any redeeming features in King's woeful article. Either that or mad, drunk or Catholic.

"You want to cut population but have no policies on how to do it. You're talking about cutting population but not mentioning contraceptives or what you'd do if people, such as a nation, said, 'no way.' Hmmm. The only exponential function I can see here is spluttering ignorance because King has trampled over your intellectual weed garden. Welcome to the real world."

Cheryl I'm seriously beginning to doubt your ability to read, having seen this comment repeated again from you.

This may come as a big shock to you, but there are NO proposals to cut population simply because so far only one "anti-pop" person has actually suggested it- out of dozens who instead advocated stuff like:
-encouraging contraceptives and increasing world-wide availability (which, we mentioned on like, every single one of these threads)
-legalizing and removing obstacles (including stigma) for an abortion to those who choose them
-Cutting baby bonuses
-Reassessing economic/workforce/pension system policy that does not require continuous population increase
-For countries that do not comply with the above (or have too many people), alter VISA requirements/access to our own countries, as well as extent of aid provided.

Although I do appreciate you pretending these points don't exist and instead constantly insist a bunch you basically made up do instead- it really puts your stance into perspective for everyone else.

To King and Cheryl there is a new dimension while all the rich and poor ae squabbling over who gets paid what. Sharia Laws in some parts of the modern world provide for the submission of the female to sex as young as 9 and for a 13 year old is common enough,indeed, up to 4x13 year olds with its attendant problems of so many children to accept the existent of other humans with other beliefs and with a different intent to exist. While it is accepted that our evolution has got this far for the numbers, it is perhaps the rising affluence that increases the demand for potable water to sustain all life and since 1940, the demand for products of polluting industries. The temp at 5 a.m was 12 deg and now 39 deg here at mid day today - not from industry starting up but from the Sun.

King Hazza, you won't get an argument out of me re encouraging contraceptives, education or cutting the BB but you'll ge heaps re messing with Visa's on the grounds of measuring a person's greenhouse emissions or by how much they eat or the energy they use to keep warm.

Unfortunately here we part company as many of the comments here are simply knee jerk reactions born from a nasty socio-biology ethos that is completely devoid of humanist principles.

Some of the comments have been good but I fear many are born from a kind of psychological despair because life hasn't deal them the cards they had hoped.

Cheryl, you do have the most extraordinary imagination. Have you thought of writing fiction professionally?