Gee Yabby, you've taken this a bit personally. Remember, I'm only a name on a screen.

All I'm trying to say, apart from refuting your tin man comments, is that the picture is not as simple as you suggest.

There are some things which the anti-pops are right about. 9B people will be living on the planet by 2050. Can't do much about that. Will there be challenges? Undoubtly.

I'm simply pointing out that population needs to be studied case by case as its in free fall in large parts of Europe.

Divergence made a pretty good point that gross human consumption needs to be factored in to environmental footprint equations - although I'm also mindful of treating people like units and the sheer amount of error when trying to aggregate these equations.

Quite right about the international price of food. Cost have skyrocketed due to failing grain crops. Is it due to climate change? Or simply poor weather? Damned if I know.

The fallacy of generalisation is at the root of much anti-pop thinking.

*Remember, I'm only a name on a screen.*

Yup Cheryl, that is all that you are. But when that name on the
screen keeps writing bunkum, its not a bad idea to point out that
its bunkum and why its bunkum.

* 9B people will be living on the planet by 2050*

Yup. Which means that much more pressure on the environment, resources, and alot more fighting over land etc. Next you will
be telling me that those who have 8 kids, can't feed them all.

*I'm simply pointing out that population needs to be studied case by case as its in free fall in large parts of Europe.*

There is no shortage of people happy to move to Europe, if required.
Perhaps now, some people will be able to actually buy a house in
Europe. In the past, they squashed them into tiny apartments.
At 450 million, the place is hardly underpopulated.

*Quite right about the international price of food. Cost have skyrocketed due to failing grain crops*

The price of food is linked to the price of oil. As oil becomes
more expensive to find, food will follow. Those with 8 kids will
squeal even louder. Perhaps the Catholic Church can sell its mega
billions of land, banks and other assets and feed them all.
They are after all encouraging and cajouling, enforcing people
to keep breeding like there is no tomorrow. Let them solve it.
And Cheryl of course, she seems to be all for it, more people is
the answer she says.

*The fallacy of generalisation is at the root of much anti-pop thinking.*

Hehe Cheryl, that is coming from you, who throws everyone into the
same anti pop bucket, as you generalise away

Excellent article; my compliments to Mr Swanton.
The statistics on population growth have been in for decades, and the conclusions are obvious. When women are given even roughly equivalent rights as men, regarding education, careers and a chance to lead meaningful, productive lives without becoming mere 'baby factories', a large number of women choose not to have children at all; and when a society becomes sufficiently affluent that infant mortality drops below about 4%, couples start having fewer children.
As an Arab oil sheik pointed out back in the 80's (I think): "we were very poor. It was common in many families to have 6 or 7 children, in the hope that one might live."
Among other mitigating population factors is the relentless migration from farms to the cities; farmers in all countries -including ours- have traditionally had large families for 'free' labour.
Limiting population growth therefore does not require any draconian measures; the exact opposite in fact.
The forecast that population growth will stabilise, and even fall back a tad is largely based on the expectation of increasing standards of living in the third world.
Unfortunately, they're going to have to be a bit cleverer than western countries were; they won't have the luxury of cheap fossil fuels.
Let's hope they can learn from our mistakes.