That's so cute, Fester.

>>Pericles and Cheryl, those fervent pop growth cargo cultists, should be banging the growth drum about the great life to be had in places like the Philippines.<<

Apparently, anyone who dares to question your dedication to controlling every aspect of other people's lives is a "pop growth cargo cultist".

If that's the best you can offer, I'm afraid it isn't that impressive.

>>There are clear lessons for the third world.<<

Were you always this patronizing? Or have you had to work at it.

So Pericles, are you saying that these low pop growth "socialists" have managed their economies better than the US, Aus and Canada pro-growthers?

They have higher GDP per capita, their GDP per capita has grown faster and they spend more per capita on health and education.

If we are being outperformed by "socialists" on first order public spending priorities like health and education (not to mention the generation of wealth per person), perhaps we should become more socialist too?

Or would rather increase your personal wealth by denying your fellow Australians the opportunity to get rich faster? Not to mention the decline in our quality of life caused by your "get rich quick" scheme!

It's a pity for you that your fantastical notions of the benefits of population growth are flatly contradicted by real world evidence.

If your pro-growth propaganda was true we ought to have a surfeit of public infrastructure in comparison with those damned "socialist" Europeans. Where is it? We're being "pantsed" in wealth generation by bleedin' "socialists" for crying out loud!

As, other writers have noted, if rampant population growth was a good thing, we'd all be striving to be more like Bangladesh, for instance.

*>>There are clear lessons for the third world.<<

Were you always this patronizing? Or have you had to work at it.*

That was my point, Pericles. I will stick by the evidence, to
back it up. Agriculture not being your strong point, perhaps
you have never thought about it.

Austalian broadacre farmers are some of the most efficient in the
world, purely because of economies of scale on huge areas of land.
For generations, Australia became wealthy on the back of agriculture.
City Australians like you, still benefit today.

When population increases and increases over time, like it has in
places like China and India, forget efficient farming, its down
to an acre or two per family. Its then all about struggling
peasants, or as in Rwanda, even worse.

Giving women a choice about the size of their families, before it
comes to that kind of overcrowding, makes perfect sense to me.

And yes, I think that there is a lesson in there for third world
countries, who commonly don't give their citizens that kind of option.

Not at all, maaate

>>So Pericles, are you saying that these low pop growth "socialists" have managed their economies better than the US, Aus and Canada pro-growthers?<<

I am saying that to link economic success or failure with population growth alone is meaningless, when there are so many other relevant factors. Including, incidentally, the point at which you choose to begin your measurement. Much like climate change, in fact.

My own personal position is that we still, in Australia, have quite a considerable distance to travel before we could realistically say "We're full. Go away".

I am fully aware that mathematically, perpetual growth is not possible. But to advocate an intelligent and thoughtful approach to a difficult subject - freighted, as it inevitably is in this country, with a mild xenophobia and fear of foreigners in general - appears to be impossible.

As far as this thread is concerned, to do so immediately brands you a "fervent pop growth cargo cultist".

Which, incidentally is a thoroughly silly label, when you think about it.

And Yabby, maybe I didn't quite understand your position.

>>yes, I think that there is a lesson in there for third world countries, who commonly don't give their citizens that kind of option [a choice about the size of their families].<<

Which countries?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1812250,00.html

That is just one example, Pericles. The Philippines.

But the list is huge. Organisations like the Guttmacher Institute
do surveys of unmet need in the third world.

Hundreds of millions of women still don't have access to modern
family planning, or simply can't afford it.

Even abortion is banned in many third world countries, unlike
the first world. So they keep popping them out, they have little
choice.

If you'd like me to google for you, a whole host of articles on
the subject, I can do so. But a well informed fellow like yourself
should soon find it.

Pericles, if we can increase our individual and collective wealth, improve our standard of living and simultaneously conserve our resources by slowing population growth rates, why would we increase population growth rates? What's the point? Growth for growth's sake? Reaching (and surpassing) Australia's carrying capacity for the sake of it? What a absolutely inane pursuit!