2
It’s true that the private owner may err in evaluating present versus future wants, or vice versa. But so may everyone else. At least the private owner has a direct interest in the most accurate evaluation, and local knowledge, and stands to lose money if he gets it wrong.

By contrast, no advocate of policy ever explains how the government is going to know what the values they would need to know, for policy to do any better.

All we hear is that it will be “democratic”. But how are the voters, voting in the abstract, to *know* the relevant present versus future values of every given resource, any better than would be indicated by their individual decisions to buy, or abstain from buying, a particular good? Especially since the political process enables them to shift the cost onto someone else, which the market process doesn’t?

What makes you think that increasing political, or common, decision-making over resources won’t *increase* current consumption, just as it increases capital consumption?

Having no direct interest either way, the functionaries of government suffer no personal loss for getting it even drastically wrong.

The electoral process doesn’t even give signals specific for a particular resource. How does government know, from a general election, whether the people want a particular mine to produce how much zircon, now, or later, or zinc, now or later, or a different mine, and which, when? And how are they to distinguish those signals from all the other bundled-up electoral signals about schooling, and defence, and hospitals, and roads, and so on?

The answer is, they can’t.

The greens railing against governments for mismanaging public forests but they are the ones who are in favour of it. How else would democratic government decide, other than on the basis of political party deals with favoured interests?

How is population policy going to weigh the interest of a person now against the interest of a person 500,000, or 50,000, or 50 years into the future?

Why should anyone now be forced to forego the pleasure, say, of having a family, to satisfy the opinion of the Ludwigs of this world that an anonymous stranger 50,000 years in the future has an equal right to the same resource, when for all we know that particular resource may not even be used any more, just as caves are no longer used for housing nor whale oil for lighting?

Those advocating a policy response are advocating an incoherent response – and that’s why they point to government-provided infrastructure as proof. The problem is, they’re proving my point, not their own!

No-one thinks an increase in population will cause a shortage of pizzas, or bottled water, or cars, or anything else privately provided. It’s always government-provided services that exemplify the inability to cope, but that’s not because of “population challenge”, it’s because they’re government-provided.

The axiom that you can’t have indefinite growth on a finite base does *not* mean that crisis is imminent.

If we put aside the squarking of Malthusian clichés (“infinite growth/finite base”) and anti-capitalist slogans, the advocates of population policy haven’t got a feather to fly with. Their cry that the issue is about “ideology” merely shows the terminal station of their intellectual train.

wallumi
A corporation is a government-granted licence of limited liability and separate legal entity. A licence is, by definition, permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Thus corporations are a creation of governments, not free markets.

So what’s an example of the “violence” you allege?

And what’s an example of an unregulated capitalist market?

Saltpetre
At least be honest about your retreat into ignorance.

You have said that you don’t want the state to force people to do anything. I proved that you do. So the problem isn’t that I’m a “troublemaker”, it’s that you’re contradicting yourself.

You rail against the human use of natural resources, as if living is wrong for humans, but not any other species.

But you still evade the big question - what do you say policy should do about these human pests?

Ludwig
So you speak for everyone who disagrees with you?

Okay then, I speak for you, how about that? And I say, for the good of the population, we need freedom from your clueless prurient meddling. I trust that settles this discussion to your satisfaction?

“Can you say that the quality of life in this country is better than it would have been…[etc.]?”

I think it’s meaningless to talk about the quality of life *in general* as if the whole of society were one single person with one single interest (and you its self-appointed representative). It’s only meaningful if we talk about the quality of life *of whom*?

Besides, what about all the interesting conversations I’ve enjoyed with immigrants since 1980, not to mention the kebabs, yum cha, sushi, and tom kah gai? What about all their pleasures at the beach, and socialising, and at home? Don’t our enjoyment or life or families count?

Or are you like a friend of mine who says “We’ve got all their recipes now – we can send ‘em all home”?

I would appreciate your critique of this: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3839

Hazza
You want to imprison people for expressing political opinions that you disagree with, but you’re not a fascist?

Squeers
Okay, we’re all consuming like crazy and it’s nothing but neoliberal ideology.

1. And your policy solution is…?
2. And you obtained knowledge of all the relevant people’s values how…?
3. And you know your solution would necessarily be an improvement on the original problem because…?

(Haven’t got a policy solution? Looks like you’re a neoliberal ideologue.)

And you’re going to start capitalism again, are you, so long as you don’t have to give up modern comforts like pootling on the internet?

Honestly, if this is the intellectual and ethical level of the advocates of population policy, why don’t you just do the decent thing and keep quiet.

Peter Hume,

Some decisions in our society are matters of personal preferences, and one person's opinion is as good as another's. Others are based on facts about the real world, and because people can get themselves into trouble through ignorance, there is a role for expert opinion and government regulation. That is why you aren't allowed to buy powerful drugs with serious side effects without a prescription. While there can be arguments about whether particular drugs should be available over the counter, the freedom to poison oneself or one's children is of no particular value.

There are many examples of really horrific societal collapses in the historical and archaeological records, and us "anti-pops" would rather avoid experiencing one ourselves. Back in 1967, India was a net importer of food, had widespread malnutrition, and had a population growth rate that was set to double the population in 30 years. It hardly required a giant leap of the imagination to predict trouble. Disaster was averted by the Green Revolution, which doubled or sometimes tripled crop yields. However, the global population and its impact have continued to grow, so that humans are now a major geophysical force, capable of affecting our planetary life support systems. See

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-scale-of-the-effect-we-have-on-the-planet-is-yet-to-sink-in-20110522-1eyqk.html

The experts have been warning us about shortages or losses of arable land, fresh water, fish stocks, biodiversity, fossil fuels and minerals that are vital for our agriculture and other technology, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes. See

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

Open version here (without figures, unfortunately)

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

No doubt Curmudgeon will say that Rockstrom et al., the authors of their references, the referees, and the editors of Nature are all lunatics, but Nature is probably the most respected peer-reviewed science journal in the world.

Even if threat A turns out to be exaggerated, and threats B and C have good technological solutions, this still leaves all the others. How lucky do you feel?

Squeers and Poirot, I am amazed by your selective refusal to see beyond the square of an OZ riding on the pig's back in sublime complacency, oblivious to, or disingenuously disregarding world forces which demand serious attention. You may wish to maintain the illusion of your transparently camouflaged myopic xenophobia, in feigned outrage at your hallucinatory spectre of hordes beating at the gates demanding your last slice of bread, but your outcry rings hollow. Howl at the moon as you will "Doom, doom, shut the gates, all is lost, we are doomed!" Your synthetic protestations achieve no more than the ostrich praying for salvation in opaque denial.

Squeers: "I suspect your chivalry for Cheryl is Christian noblesse oblige, and not very genuine--"; "Excuse my cheek, but your thinking on concessions to immigrants strikes me as point-scoring too--Christian do-goodism whose effects are more like laudanum than a purgative."

Think again my friend. Your quest for a "purgative" is a horse long since bolted. Ours is a minuscule cosmopolitan kaleidoscope within an over-stocked frenetic whirlpool of humanity simmering on the precipice of unfulfillment. A cursory glance at the mid-east alone serves as insight to the tip of a tsunami clamouring for justice and equity in an increasingly inequitable world-scape. Whether we like it or not paradigm change is afoot, and tenacious fortification of the western decadent utopia is merely to cling to the ethereal threads of a day-dream whose course is nearly run and whose inglorious suppositions are to be tested and found wanting. The push for equity is an irreversible tide, so face it, and find a way to maintain balance, or it will sweep you away without trace.

To suppose that Oz can be immune from the massive forces of change being played out in the world is an idealistic illusion. World conflict deriving from overpopulation and an increasing awareness of inequity and repression, can only be properly addressed by embracing change to a sustainable and equitable deployment of world resources. Oz can play its part constructively, or there won't be space to store all the boats.

Saltpetre,

bloody hell!
Can you run that by me again in one or two clear sentences please? I've been immersed in Hegel all day but I think you're prose is denser!
Based on what I think I can infer, though, you most definitely mistake me, old chum, and Poirot too I'll hazard.
Hopefully you'll give me the 'for dummies' version of your prosaic dudgeon, and I'll try to explain what I meant in those admittedly throw-away terms I couched my last in as soon as time permits.
Suffice to say for now that while I may have seemed abrupt, 'twas not ill-meant, and that I think Australia should be helping in any humanitarian way it can to address the problem's it has and continues to help create in the world.

Peter Hume,
my policy solution, off the top of my head, is that a coalition of countries powerful enough to form a block (though preferably the whole world) imposes an immediate wealth and assets cap on everyone without exception. The limit once reached being allowed to be maintained but not exceeded, and excess revenue being gathered as surplus and used to address the various ills we've precipitated, including lifting the worst-off from destitution. The wealth cap would be complemented apropos the wealthy by much lower wages so that an incentive is maintained to continue working and maintaining "maximum" wealth and comfort, and so contributing also to the surplus. In poor countries wages would be higher so that they could eventually attain parity.
Importantly though, economic growth would be gradually cut back and population growth disincentivised so that humanity would eventually start trending in reverse.

I could go on, and of course much fine tuning would be needed on the run, but I'm sure there's enough in what I've said for you to have a field day already, Pete : )