democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.
-- Isaac Asimov

Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, maybe we should control the population to ensure the survival of our environment.
-- Sir David Attenborough

"Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"
-- Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Colorado; World Population Balance Board of Advisors

"'Smart growth' destroys the environment. 'Dumb growth' destroys the environment. The only difference is that 'smart growth' does it with good taste. It's like booking passage on the Titanic. Whether you go first-class or steerage, the result is the same."
--Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Colorado; World Population Balance Board of Advisors

"The point of population stabilization is to reduce or minimize misery."
--Roger Bengston, founding board member, World Population Balance

We must alert and organise the world's people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises - exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.
-- Jacques-Yves Cousteau

“Mark my words though, the anti-population movement has a very nasty social engineering aspect which most Australians would abhor.”
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 22 April 2011 12:11:56 PM

Yes, the words are marked:
The use of “anti-population movement” is obviously meant to refer to any individual or organization which expresses concern regarding the pressure of human numbers.
Your words deplore their concerns about numbers impacting unfavourably upon the ability of societies, of whatever flavour, to maintain cohesion within and between themselves, with their resource bases, and with inter-generational needs.
The words embrace great humanitarian workers. Just a few of the many available examples of these are Howard Florey, who fostered the development of Penicillin; Frank Fenner, who signed-off on elimination of the scourge of Smallpox; Judith Wright-McKinney, famous for expressing her love of Australia and its people in poetry, and as a campaigner for Aboriginal rights.

Such people as the above, and those organizations of similar persuasion, are very much pro-people.
The dissimulation associated with your words could only come from an anti-people person on a campaign

Vanna, you say “We now have a partly socialist system in this country.”
I disagree with that, the present so called Labor Government is really a thinly veiled Liberal Government with a labor label.
But I realize having done a bit of research that what I call socialism and the accepted definition are two different things.
I actually said “ true socialism” and not pure socialism, but I really am not able to pin a label on the concept that I was trying to explain. I suppose a more explanatory label would be “moral socialism”
Where our present capitalism falls down, is the corporation legislation allows the huge conglomerates that have eventuated to become so powerful that they can (and do) dictate to governments.
They are also totally without moral responsibility and only exist to provide the biggest profit possible to the shareholders and directors that can be squeezed out of the client base.
A good example of this is the Exxon Valdez spill, where Exxon set out to use its colossal wealth to stymie any punitive action taken against it and years later has succeeded in this.
There is no justice forthcoming in that case and now never will be. It is quite possible that the same will result from the BP spill in the Gulf.
Now my idea of a Socialist government would be able to take action and obtain a fair result for the people that were ruined by these events and not have the results watered down by a weak government in thrall to the biggest Corporation with the biggest earning in the world.
This has nothing to do with families and property except that property is the carrot dangled in front of the population, to incite them to support corporations in their bid to become totally liability free.
You to can be rich like us one day, is the bait and most fall for it.
ps it's sarnian not sarian.

*It is quite possible that the same will result from the BP spill in the Gulf.*

Sarnian, in last weekends Weekend Australian, there was an article
about some of the rorts going on, when BP put 20 billion$ on the
table to clean up the mess. One place which BP needed to rent,
suddenly cost over 600 times more a week, then it used to.

The point is, greed goes right through the community and individuals.
Corporations are mere paper entities, run by people. So this
myth of the evils of corporations compared to those poor people,
is a bit of a furphy.

What the BP saga does show is that some people are as greedy as they
can somehow legally get away with. Thousands of them are trying
their luck to cream it, at BPs expense.

Its no different here. When I get equipment repaired, some of it
from storm damage, the first question is invariably, if its an
insurance job. If it is, the price goes up.

Sarnian
The capitalist system can be used to produce a better society or a more sustainable way of living.

Some food types are presently given a rating if they are believed healthy enough. For example, the Heart Foundation’s “Tick Program” gives food a rating.

http://www.pickthetick.org.nz/home.html

Similarly, every item sold could be given a rating by an accredited organization if it is believed to be environmentally friendly, or suitable for healthy living.

The consumer can then see their likely impact on society or on the environment by purchasing that item.

If that doesn’t work, then eventually those items that have a significantly negative impact on society or on the environment can be made more expensive, or simply removed from sale.

It is a form of risk management.

Our present society, whether it is socialist or not, would have to be one of the most expensive ways of living ever devised.

To raise a child, the mother must first be given a bonus to have the child.

Then the child needs two of everything, because it has to go from mummy's house to daddy's house, then considerable amounts of money have to be paid to daycare centers to raise the child, then enormous amounts of money have to be paid out to cure the child of everything from diabetes to depression.

That’s just children, but adults are almost as expensive to operate, and now we also have immigrants, who are more expensive again.

The global population growth has been dropping now for 20 years and it is thought that our peak population, and then decline, will be around 2070.
Australia now has peaking emigration, permanent Aussies leaving for good and lower immigration, people coming permanently and we could hit our peak population as early as 2035.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/world-population-growth-slowing-20091117-ikct.html

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldgr.gif

Population ageing results mainly from declining fertility. According to the 2008 Revision, fertility in the less developed regions as a whole is expected to drop from 2.73 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.05 in 2045-2050. The reduction projected for the group of 49 least developed countries is even steeper: from 4.39 children per woman to 2.41 children per woman. To achieve such reductions, it is essential that access to family planning expands, particularly in the least developed countries. Around 2005, the use of modern contraceptive methods in the least developed countries was a low 24 per cent among women of reproductive age who were married or in union and a further 23 per cent of those women had an unmet need for family planning. The urgency of realizing the projected reductions of fertility is brought into focus by considering that, if fertility were to remain constant at the levels estimated for 2005-2010, the population of the less developed regions would increase to 9.8 billion in 2050 instead of the 7.9 billion projected by assuming that fertility declines. That is, without further reductions of fertility, the world population could increase by nearly twice as much as currently expected.

Future population growth is highly dependent on the path that future fertility takes. In the medium variant, fertility declines from 2.56 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.02 children per woman in 2045-2050. If fertility were to remain about half a child above the levels projected in the medium variant, world population would reach 10.5 billion by 2050. A fertility path half a child below the medium would lead to a population of 8 billion by mid-century. Consequently, population growth until 2050 is inevitable even if the decline of fertility accelerates.
.