I would think that large scale immigration is an aberration that doesn’t work very well.

Pity we can no longer produce enough children naturally.

Yet another foaming diatribe to follow Malcolm's effort of last December (a must read for lovers of incoherent rhetoric - http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9819). Malcolm's approach to those opposed to population GROWTH (not population) seems to be to make as many absurd accusations as possible in the hope that some of the mud will stick. But he and his ilk (e.g. my favourite frequent commenter "Cheryl") only succeed in making themselves look silly. The anti-population GROWTH movement is a very broad church of concerned citizens who simply do not believe that humans, however clever they are, can overcome the laws of nature and continue to grow in a finite environment. It's that simple. Some, like Malcolm, simply cannot accept this reality and so rave and rant against those who simply want their children to have a future.

I wonder what the ex citizens of Easter island would think of this article?

If only Mr King would stick to facts and not unsupportable generalizations and hyperbole.

I wonder if he understands the difference between campaigning (slagging off) and Discussion.

The more extreme the starter the more distractions and leeway there are for the myopically, willfully ignorant.
On the positive side his comment about the dying off of the Baby boomers is relevant and worthy of input.

The author is presenting a classic 'straw man' argument by inventing the category 'anti-pops'. Those of us who think that Australia's population growth is too rapid don't necessarily accept all the global warming and anti-capitalist ideology that he claims.The author's thesis is patently ridiculous,economic theory or history doesn't necessarily support high population growth ,in fact there is evidence that nations with small populations perform better.The focus is on-'what is the sustainable population for Australia?',which is by the way, mainly desert,it's not the USA or Brazil.

I agree with michael_in_adelaide-this article is basically a rant,the kind of rhetoric we all expect(and deplore)from politicians.

Actually Michael, I quite liked your last article. It was wrong, as I showed, but it was much better than many of the anti-pop loony tune diatribes.

I have a few issues with some of King's articles. He is clearly pro international development and his Toryism irks me. It seems though that his political experience may have served him well as he has carved all of the anti-populationist tenets with ease.

Michael, you and your ilk may be overly sensitive to criticism and that you are not used to having your dogma challenged.

Malcolm says:
"The climate changers have not proved their thesis. Even if one employs the precautionary principle, as I have done, and accept we should cut carbon emissions, we are still a long, long way from saying, by erroneous extension, that climate change is caused by population. If it is caused by anything, it is first world consumption and corporate greed."



If Malcolm is still an RMIT staff member, he might try downloading the letter published in AAAS Science Magazine, May 7th last week, titled

"Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

"WE ARE DEEPLY DISTURBED BY THE RECENT ESCALATION OF POLITICAL ASSAULTS ON SCIENTISTS in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet."

The letter goes on to present a carefully argued case, and is signed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/328/5979/689.pdf

Perhaps there's still a chance that Malcolm will one day be mildly embarrassed by this odd essay of his, which I do not think is very carefully argued at all. Its form reminds me of the diatribe I heard on Parliamentary radio yesterday arvo, by some Liberal backbencher from WA. I could almost feel the spittle in my ear.

Oh another botchy article by Labor's smear and spin-doctor Malcolm King!
Wait wait!
Let me guess- he tries to gather the silliest and flimsiest accusations and apply it to the 'anti-pops', and tries to argue against his own silly perceptions of this 'group' to make himself look good, maybe throw in a few tacky lines hoping they'd make him look like a statesman-like individual making an impenetrable argument.

Oh! And maybe even makes up some kind of goal 'anti-pops' are supposed to have, and elaborate how anti-pops don't know what they are talking about because that goal they supposedly all have cannot come true?

Am I right?

(its the fact that the Labor Party hires such a dodgy individual to represent them makes me worry about their integrity- the fact that he's such a dud makes me think they can't even get someone of higher caliber than a gorilla to work for them).
Needless to say I now know to put Labor at the very bottom of my paper.

It's hard to know how to respond to such an ill-informed rant. While there are always a few bigots and xenophobes around, this debate is not about religion or race or refugees or about telling people how many children to have. It's about the fact that there cannot be infinite growth in a finite world and the sooner we start planning to deal with that the better. It's hard to think that Mr King, who evidently plies the trade of writing resumes and inflammatory articles, appears to have no real grounding in economics, the environment, working in industry or capitalism. On the other hand, I have owned and led a major firm in the construction industry for many years, believe that capitalism is the only economic game in town and that it is capable of adapting to a low or zero growth environment while keeping us all at least as well off as now.

Save us from know-it-all commentators with no first hand knowledge of the real world of industry and capitalism!

Crikey Malcolm. I don't consider myself an anti-populationist, but when you throw all kinds of people in one bucket and generalize in such an offensive, and dare I say it, 'half assed' manner, I can't help but wanna sign up, to protest such idiocy.

Anti populationists are "opposed to technology".

Where the hell did you dig this nugget up? From what I can tell, it depends on the technology. I bet they're pretty keen on improving solar cells and the like. Though I suppose "they're opposed to some technologies" doesn't sound nearly as damning now does it?

You also say: "Humans are “units” to be measured. All of the anti-pops ideas stem from this premise."

Actually, I've heard many people arguing on the basis of resource consumption, not by numbers of people. So, your premise "all of the anti-pops ideas stem from this premise", is fundamentally flawed.

Though again, arguing in favour of increasing resource consumption sounds kinda dumb, so you create a pigeonhole, then stuff your opponents in it.
Again, intellectually shallow, but hey, this was just the warm up.

"Actually, the anti-pops don’t believe in economics. It’s not, as they say “in their paradigm”. Their focus is on limiting growth or as one critic put it, stunting potential"

'The anti-pops don't "believe in" economics? For crying out loud Malcolm, enough with the generalisations. By the same token, evidently I can argue that all people named Malcolm are clearly prone to idiotic hyperbole.

To rebut this one, review this piece. It's an economics article, on OLO, from not long ago. A cursory review of this site could have shown you that some arguments argue in favour of population reduction. To make things incredibly simple, you should note that the name, put simply, is "Economic arguments against population growth".

It's a fine example of how to make an argument logically, as opposed to offensive ranting.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10375

The truth is, I'm not opposed to immigration. But Malcolm, your style of argument makes me want to join the other side.

Oh dear, King has ruffled a few feathers. The bearded gnomes have started name calling early. I'd better go back and re-read it.

Done.

A fine debunking of the most idiotic thesis that has appeared in OLO for some time. My only criticism is that he didn't roll in the whacko rising sea level 'thesis' as well.

Sorry Fellas but the author is basically right, nor is the article in any sense incoherent or a rant.
The anti-pops movement has fundamental problems in that its advocates are trying to limit population growth - mess with the basic decision about how many children we should have - and that just isn't going to happen. They may have more success with limiting immigration but for that to happen they need to be able to point to a good reason - and not just wild-eyed statement about expected increases in temperatures and the like, or moanings over how the environment can't cope any longer.
These dire warnings have been repeated for decades with no results and no indications of dire consequences. Novels written in the 1930s have references to concerns over population growth.. In the 1960s there were forecasts of mass starvation..
None of it has come to pass.. time to move on to other issues.

Same old same old. Typical strategy. Why not come up with a coherent argument about why we should seek to increase populations ie. what are the benefits but no, instead the usual them and us rhetoric and put downs.

What are the benefits of unfettered growth other than higher profits? Try to convince us that your approach is the right one? It usually works much better than misrepresenting the opposing view.

Why isnt it completely obvious that sooner or late, in a finite world, we human beings will have to limit our numbers.

Or as with all biological species, the planetary eco-system WILL do it for us.

The solution to the very real problem of over-population is cultural, and not technological.

Especially when at our current level of cultural development (or rather lack of it) we are little more than hairy primate manure-machines, and as such, essentially sub-human, and deeply, mortally afraid.

We are threatened is the primary communication of the "news".

Which is why we are driven by our fear-created-hormones to reproduce ourselves endlessly. This being especially the case with almost all cultural collectives or memes (large or small). All of which are struggling to either survive or to dominate other groups. And even to gain a position of world power--by replacing the current Western hegemony.

Such struggles for power and lebens-room is the ONLY game on the planet.

The entire human world is ruled by fear.

This letter was written in response to this, now dreadful, global situation.

http://www.dabase.org/openlett.ht

We still have some natural increase, but that is entirely due to momentum from past high fertility rates from the 1960s and earlier. Our fertility rate is still below replacement level and has been since 1976, although it has gone up somewhat recently, possibly in response to the baby bonus, but more likely because women have been getting the message that fertility declines with age and having their babies sooner.

Once the baby boomers start to die in significant numbers, the natural increase will stop and then go slightly negative. If we started zero net immigration tomorrow, we would almost certainly get (temporarily) less than a million extra people. Babies are not the problem, although many of us have doubts about the wisdom of bribing people to have them. I doubt if Malcolm King is so stupid that he is incapable of reading the ABS figures, so he knows that his rants about fascist control of reproduction are complete defamatory nonsense, at least so far as most of us are concerned. (You can always find a few lone nutters who will say anything you like.)

Cheryl,

You haven't shown that Michael is wrong. You have given some facts about food exports that are implicit in Michael's graphs and then asserted, without evidence, that we can support triple the population, presumably through long droughts as well.

The real problem for the SPA is that this guy seems to know a lot about you. I like the SPA's articles for their satirical value but King's articles go for the jugular. Every para is like a kick in the balls for the SPA - which seems fitting for a blokes club. It would be interesting if he went public.

I'm fascinated by the argument that to be richer we need to have a larger population. We're actually the 7th wealthiest country on the basis of per capita GDP (if you don't count Luxembourg, which you shouldn't because it is essentially a cheat)http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/534585063757. And with the exception of the US and Canada those countries who are richer than us are actually smaller than us http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/534288836446. Now they are 2007 figures, so Ireland probably doesn't rank anymore, but I think the rest do.

It's a pleasure to publish Malcolm's pieces - they are provocative and thought-provoking. But I think he makes some big mistakes. Finding me lumped-in with radical Greens as close philosophical allies is a little unsettling! You can be an economic liberal and think the population growth fetish is nonsense.

"Same old same old. Typical strategy. Why not come up with a coherent argument about why we should seek to increase populations ie. what are the benefits but no, instead the usual them and us rhetoric and put downs."
Because Pelican, that would require an intelligent person with the mental capacity to fit, aiming at a serious broader audience with intention to seriously weigh in on a debate.

Malcolm is your typical gorilla doing the job he's paid for- and the only thing he is capable of- winding up bogans who were already of such low mental intellect and getting publicity.

I really don't know why people are still posting here and trying to enlighten Cheryl's stereotypical viewpoints of the "anti-pops", considering the entire scenerio had happened only a few months earlier when King wrote, practically the exact same article then.

What a silly article! Straw men are so easy to kill.
Perhaps if the author represented the views of people instead of the rare extremists it would have some value.
Why did a whole generation stop breeding? How about aggressive economic policy that made it untenable to do so without dramatic lifestyle loss.

Malcolm King's idea that global problems are entirely due to overconsumption should also be debunked. Overconsumption is real enough, but even if it completely stopped tomorrow, the average global citizen would still be poor. People have worked out from environmental footprints how many earths would be required to give everyone on earth the same standard of living as the average standard of living of any particular country. This graph from the 6/10/2007 New Scientist magazine shows that the resources of three earths would be required to give everyone a modest Western European standard of living. See

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2624/26243101.jpg

That is just for the existing population, not the 9 or 12 billion that we could get in the future.

The y-axis shows the UN Human Development Index values for the different countries and regions on the graph. This is a measure of human well-being, based on life expectancy, literacy, etc. It indicates that almost no countries are giving their people decent lives on am average level of consumption much below that of Europe. Cuba seems to be an exception, but the severe austerity and high degree of authoritarian control also have to be recognised.

Did Malcolm visit

http://www.population.org.au/

??

You people are like addicts going back to the opium den for more. You just can't keep away can you? Go on - I dare you. Revisit the article once more and write an asinine comment. You know you want to. Here come the bearded gnomes - there go equanimity and reason.

"Revisit the article once more and write an asinine comment."

I think it high time the population growth zealots stopped using Comical Ali as a role model. While his wit and charm are a worthy aspiration and would be a welcome change, I feel that emulating his rhetoric is far too ambitious.

A human chook pen isn't my Utopia.

Cheryl, perhaps for you it is not opium, but pot - as in the pot calling the kettle black? But I will leave the last word for you.

Yep, and my last word for Cheryl is that 'asinine comments' that supposedly fail to properly evaluate the subject presented would be a leaf taken from someone else's book.

Very apt King Hazza.

There is a difference between anti-population (inference anti-people) and anti-overpopulation which only serves to increase anti-human activity eg. famine, civil war, environmental degradation, depletion of resources, lack of water.

You don't have to be an Einstein to work out that more people need more resources, technology and innovation is vital but can only go so far.

It is not misanthropic to control our numbers. Any child would understand we can't keep growing our numbers and expect our species to ultimately survive. It is logical, and actually essential and in our interests. Overcrowding and over population will cause wars, conflict, famine, loss of natural resources, loss of arable land, extinctions and destruction of ecosystems. As creatures on top of the food chain and dominance, we need self-regulation. Kangaroos are capable of controlling their own numbers so it shouldn't be impossible for us too.

Well said:

King Hazza
Pelican
VivKay

The effects of overcrowding and over population should be obvious to all. But not, apparently, to some.

To those who favour humans increasing population size indefinitely, please present the infrastructure, resources and expanse that will support us all.

Cheryl almost perfectly matches the Wikipedia definition of a troll, showing heavy reliance on name-calling, unsubstantiated allegations, and hit-and-run tactics. She shows little interest in the truth or in rational argument. She doesn't even appear to be very interested in convincing people that she is right, probably because she knows that the evidence is against her. When (rarely) she does say something substantive and someone presents a counterargument or evidence against her position, she does not reply, preferring to disappear, shift her ground, or resort to more abuse.

When she gets people to waste time on her, she achieves her objective, which is to poison and derail the debate. It isn't clear why she is doing this, although it is easy to imagine financial or ideological motives. The best strategy may be to simply ignore her, at least until someone gets fed up enough to sue her for defamation. "Don't feed the troll."

The intellectual perversity of such comments can only be understood in the context of a profound retreat from reason. They have junked the rule of evidence, objectivity and rationality in favour of fantasy, irrationality and up-side down thinking.

The above comments do not even pretend to hide their crypto-fascist views and their arguments, so far as they are arguments, are as sterile as the sterlisation programs they propound.

They are environmental ideologues who, like religious fanatics, try to wrench their 'evidence' to fit an ideological mold. Not only is their environmental extremism inimical to reason, it sacrifices truth to power as it attacks those who try to uphold the formal rules of logic and argument in the face of dogma.

They have failed to attack the article in question and have turned on the commentators. Some have now realised that the SPA arguments are anti-people. Too late. They have even ridiculously flagged defamation action re my comments. Now they want to silence comment. You'd also better look up the concepts of 'imputation' and 'identification'.

While OLO must necessarily be a broad church of opinion, what we have witnessed here is the kind of pack mentality and fear mongering more typical of the mob.

I generally ignore the Cheryls on OLO but have to ask who is 'they'. One person posting a comment about defamation does not a 'they' make.

This is typical of the tactics of those who are hellbent on unfettered population growth, which is don't offer reason just make broad sweeping statements and hope no-one is looking for the fine print.

Please outline your reasons why you think continuing to increase population is a good thing? Is there any point at which you think Australia (just for example) cannot provide sufficient resources for a reasonable quality of living - including water management, congestion, loss of arable farming land, drought management etc.

Did you not think the King article attacked the opposing view without offering any reasons for why population sustainability is an undesirable option.

There was also no attempt even to expand on what technological advancements might be that will assist in effectively enabling higher population growth, particularly in the developing world.

*are as sterile as the sterlisation programs they propound.*

Cheryl, you crap on with this line, over and over again. Yet nobody
is suggesting forced sterilisation.

What it comes down to is this: If you shag the guy down the road,
you have choices when it comes to family planning methods and choices
when it comes to abortion, should you want that choice.

Give third world people the same choices as you have and the
overpopulation question will vanish, as we know that roughly
half of all foetesus arn't wanted. People the world over, tend to
have sex for other reasons then making babies, they are commonly
just an unfortunate accident.

All very simple really, but clearly well beyond you.

Nice to know we are the world's 7th richest country - but shouldn't we aim to be number one, like we were early in the twentieth century? If I could just remember what our population was at the time....and our carbon emissions.

Here's a game to play: think about what you consider to be the most important things in the Australia you would like to live in. Education, health, public transport, home ownership, number of poker machines, whatever you choose. Then think about when these were best provided in the last hundred years, or when you expect them to be at their best if you realistically see them improving. Then look at the population that goes with them. Then have a glass of wine and a good hard think.

It is not necesarily accurate to call Cheryl a Troll. She could be an automatic response.

Google RACTER. I first read about RACTER in Scientific American, back when. At one point in the late '80's, I had a copy that ran on my Apple 2e. I expect that, since then, similar programs have improved on the aims.

Cheryl may appreciate the text below, and my meant apologies in the event that she (like Pinocchio) could be a real, live girl.

"BILL. I love a child.

MARCELA. Children are fortunately captivating.

BILL. Yet my love is excellent.

MARCELLA. My love is spooky yet we must have a child, a spooky child.

BILL. Do you follow me?

MARCELLA. Children come from love or desire. We must have love to possess children or a child.

BILL. Do we have love?

MARCELLA. We possess desire, angry desire. But this furious desire may murder a child. It may be killing babies someday.

BILL. Anyway let's have a child.

MARCELLA. My expectation is children.

BILL. They will whisper of our love.

MARCELLA. And our perpetual, enrapturing, valuable fantasy."

from:
http://www.ubu.com/concept/racter.html

Thanks for a good laugh, Sir Vivor

Actually, responding to Cheryl might be better than ignoring her, providing that you can match her standards of civility and respect for logic and evidence.

By the way, I don't want to silence people who disagree with me. Like most of us here, I enjoy a good argument and have had a number of them with Rhian, with both us remaining civil. Nor am I threatening to sue Cheryl. She is welcome to call Divergence a big dummy as often as she likes, although Graham might eventually intervene. However, if I were on the Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) executive (I'm not), I would consider a lot of what she has written defamatory. (Whether she is worth suing is another story.) It is not OK to call a named organisation with named people running it racist or fascist without solid evidence to back up the accusation.

My own take on SPA and similar organisations, such as the Optimum Population Trust in the UK, is that they are composed of ordinary people (and a fair few scientists) who are concerned about how the population boosters are trashing their children's and grandchildren's environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, and general quality of life. Some also believe that other species have a right to live too or that God doesn't want us to destroy the environment.

Aren't we so quick to tag people!(anti-pops)Quite sad really. The signs are out there folks! Dwindling fish stocks,diminishing resources, extra. This is a global problem not just Australia's How many ants do we need on our anthill(Planet Earth) Put your hand up, if you think we don't have enough poverty on the planet, The planet is already over populated. You don't need a university degree to work that out! The bigger the city,the more disgusting is it's under belly. How many people on this planet live unproductive lives, or destructive one's How many people live miserable lives because of genetic inherited defects in their DNA? We as humans are thought to strive for perfection. We need quality! not quantity! Time to licence people that want to breed. If you can't support and look after yourself, or have genetic defects! Then you shouldn't be aloud to breed. Put your hand up if you think we don't have enough welfare recipients in our community, or brain dead Ferrel's with anti social personalities! We all need to start think as global citizens and not just our piece of the plant. Time to kill the capitalist pig with in all of us, and become real humans and help clean up heal good old planet Earth. I'd like to see the human race reinvent it self! Something we could all be proud to be a part of! instead of just a big wank that is mankind to day!