A foot note to my previous post.
Art is always coincident with culture.

Films in one form or another are easily the most popular and influential form of art in our day and age. As such they inevitably reflect the zeitgeist and anxieties of the time in which they appear.

More importantly they are also very potent forms of propaganda. Hollywood was a key player in producing patriotic propaganda during World War II

A good measure of the relative effects of population and consumption is to look at environmental footprints such as these from the Global Footprint Network

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2008/

Environmental footprints allow rough comparisons of consumption between different countries by converting consumption to notional hectares of land. The methodology is explained here

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/methodology/

If the main problem is that a relatively few people are hogging all the resources, then you would expect the global per capita footprint to be quite high. If it is too many people to give everyone a decent quality of life, then the average environmental footprint would be low. If the resources were divided equally, then everyone would be poor. In fact, the global average per capita footprint is 2.7 hectares. This represents the average standard of living of Botswana or Romania. However, we are currently in overshoot, so that we are effectively living on our capital. If we stopped doing this, the global footprint would decrease to 1.8 hectares, the standard of living of Ghana or Guatemala. Cheryl may consider these sorts of living standards adequate, but I suspect most of us would not, and neither would the people currently living with them.

A very few, mostly badly overpopulated countries have declining populations, but the global population is continuing to grow at 1.2% (doubling time of 58 years). This is less than in the past, but since the growth is from a larger base, we are still adding about 80 million people a year. Demographic momentum from pyramid-shaped age distributions means that it can take up to 70 years for growth to stop. I have seen calculations that India's population would double before it stabilised, even if the fertility rate dropped to replacement level tomorrow and stayed there.

*Look at the growth curves beyond 2050 - they go down*

Err Cheryl, the growth curves don't magically go down by themselves.
They go down because some of us are aware that some of us do
breed like rabbits. Some are even forced to breed like rabbits,
by those wonderful religious.

But then you are fortunate enough, not be have been one of those
women, forced to pop out and try to feed 8 kids. Lucky you.

Some of us will continue to lobby for all women having it as easy
as you do, the choices that you have. The planet and our future,
would certainly be improved.

That is why the graph heads down, but it will only go down if
we keep lobbying, pushing and shoving. It would not go down
if the Vatican and others had their way. Luckily through all
the lobbying against them, they are losing power bit by bit.

Eventually one day, third world women might have the choices that
you take for granted.

Err, Yabby. Do you really believe that the population of western democracies is going down because we don't want to overpopulate the planet? It's going down because of our affluence. We don't need children for superannuation, we don't have to pump out 10 kids to have 3 survive. We don't need sons to work our subsistence farms. Our women have choices NOT to have children. Your point about religion being a major cause of overpopulation is also ridiculous.
If you really want third world populations to drop and for women there to have the same choices as you then you should really be out promoting democracy and free markets. You should be lobbying the UN to invade these places and replace their evil and corrupt governments. But we wouldn't do that, would we? Much better to "think good" than to actually address the problems.

The legacy of 50 years the faith of secular humanism has led one of the most selfish, violent immoral generations the world has seen. The murder of the unborn, the greed, the immorality are all fruits of the idiotic notion that we arrived here by chance. The quickness of current ethicist to judge previous generations is unbelievable considering the mess their philosophies have got us in now. I noticed the author is a disciple of the global warming faith which to many is a very poor self righteous attempt to somehow display some moral superiority. Appealing to the inept and corrupt UN shows how willing these ethicist are to overlook the rot in man's heart. The sad part is that it sounds like David believes his own faith. The only good legacy that will last will be by those who have had their corrupt natures dealt with by Christ.

*Our women have choices NOT to have children. Your point about religion being a major cause of overpopulation is also ridiculous.*

Exactly Bozzie, our women have choices. From the pill, the norplant,
the snip, the loop, the abortion and a heap of other choices.

Third world women commonly don't have those choices. They don't
have the money, organisations like the Vatican make sure then in
countries where they have influence in politics and in the hospitals,
that it remains that way.

People in third world countries have sex just like you. If you
had no family planning methods at your disposal, what would you do?

Hundreds of millions of women in the third world have an unmet
need for family planning. But run off and do some homework.
Come back to me and apologise, when you notice that I am correct.