Yes Cheryl,
I did not mean to imply we are friends, more acquaintances.
I and many others of our ilk first met Dick when he opened his first
shop next to the WIA in St Leonards.
We have had passing contact over the years and I had radio contact with
him a few times,especially one when he was flying his helicopter from
Japan to Alaska. I spoke to him at a function a couple of months ago
about a mutual friend who was his contact on the ship where he
refuelled on that Japan to Alaska flight.

So I hope that makes it clear as to my knowledge of Dick.

>So what's he doing ranting on about population?

I gather from the program that his daughter stirred him up on the matter.
You know as much as I do about that.
Perhaps he is adopting the role of the boy who said the emperor has no clothes.

Unlike some other cornucopian growthists, Cheryl accepts that there are limits to growth, but asserts that they are so far in the future that we effectively don't have to worry about them. However, the 9 Thresholds paper in Nature that I linked to earlier says that we have already crossed 3 of the thresholds, relating to climate change, loss of biodiversity, and interference with the nitrogen cycle and are out of a "safe operating space for humanity". We are rapidly approaching 4 more thresholds.

Cheryl might also check what has been happening to prices of commodities, such as crude oil, corn, wheat, and rice over the past 10 years. Graphs can be found here

http://www.chartsrus.com/

and this one for phosphate rock

http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/phosphate_rock.html

If there are plenty of resources, why are prices much higher than in the 2000-2005 period? Why has China, one of the biggest producers of phosphate rock, slapped a 135% export tariff on it, effectively banning export, instead of taking advantage of the high prices? Is it possible that they know something Cheryl doesn't?

If the famous Ehrlich-Simons bet on the cost of 5 metals had closed in 2008 and not 1990, Simons would only have been right about one of them, and Ehrlich would have won. See

http://biolaw.blogspot.com/2008/03/ehrlich-simon-bet-update.html

and

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/02/re-litigating_t.html

Divergence, I never argued about the limits to growth. It's also rather unusual that the anti-pops make this as a unique claim. Back in the 19th C economists knew that we'd run out of 'stuff' - minerals and oil. There are some things we can synthesise but much we can't.

Even back then they knew the problem wasn't people, it was energy. That's a major problem. Pulling back the levers of capitalism now won't make the faintest difference. Neither will cutting population. Indeed, global population will start to fall by 2050.

The main game is looking at new energy sources and how they can be adapted as part of the mix for the future.

Quite right about phosphate. Running out.

"Even back then they knew the problem wasn't people, it was energy."
Cheryl you are naive fool in a state of denial. People use energy therefore the more people there are the more energy will be consumed. Reduce the number of people and you reduce the amount of energy consumed. To deny this is just plain STUPID.

"Neither will cutting population."
Rubbish Cheryl!

"Indeed, global population will start to fall by 2050."
All the demographic evidence is to the contrary. And even if the global population does start falling after 2050 it will be far to late to avert a human catastrophe.

"The main game is looking at new energy sources and how they can be adapted as part of the mix for the future."
Yeah, yeah Cheryl. We have heard it all before. For the christians, their god will always provide. For you and other idiotic humanists, technology will always provide.

What is your fall back plan if technology fails to come up with a miraculuous new energy source