*- while there are parts of the world which are underpopulated - Africa, for example *

So how many more species do you think they should wipe out in Africa,
to make way for more humans, Loudmouth ?

I love that thing called natural justice. The more effort that
you put in to passing on your dna, working your arse off to feed
and raise those kids, all for nought if you don't live sustainably.
For if its not sustainable, eventually your dna will croak it.

Richard Dawkins did not call it the Selfish Gene for nothing.

Fact is that humans are smart enough to invent nice new things,
but not smart enough to live sustainably. So be it. Let natural
justice prevail.

"I will observe, however, "Big Government" of the leftie collectivist style, has only ever reduced what should be a "free life" to an "intolerable existence" - " Col Rouge

Let go of it Col. Without "Big Government" - read intense social regulation - those you climb over to ascend your ivory tower would treat you to an Indonesian style 'halal' despatch in flash.

You conservatives love the 'Law of the Jungle' as long as it's not a real jungle or level playing field and the particular rules of this 'neo-liberal economic jungle' advance your interests. So don't come on all sweet and strong about "Big Government'. Without it, your ilk would be mince meat and your ivory towers Roman Candles. You know it and I know it so let's dispense with the pious lecture. Or perhaps you're such a big man you don't need government and the protection it affords?

For what it's worth, here's my 2c worth of McPopulation policy:

-Domestically, dump all breeding incentives - baby bonus, family benefit A & B, paid parental leave, child care rebates, child care benefit, family assistance etc. (you should appreciate that it will have a Darwinian effect in encouraging those who can afford children and know how to make money will pass those genes on to their children). If you want to be reasonable about it, introduce the measures after an individual has had a child (two per couple). That would produce a significant but steady decline in population without being too dramatic and still leaving room for humanitarian immigration. If you want to get serious, you introduce penalties for those who want to produce more than 2 children per couple.

-Internationally, all foreign aid should be tied to reducing population growth in recipient countries. If you want our assistance, you abide by our conditions. The options here are myriad. (On the downside, humanitarian foreign aid has never been prominent on the radar of people like Col and is usually associated with graft and it may take some time to re-educate those involved in these types of foreign affairs /commercial relationships)

Thanks, Joe. I take a democratic view of the question: Give people choices and let them make up their own minds. I dont like the idea of population being controlled by government policy, be it for more or fewer, unless it has the support of voters.

Again, I disagree with your view of the impact of medical treatment: You seem to see it as merely prolonging life and creating a greater burden on society. Would you acknowledge that the successful management of chronic ailments can increase productivity and so be of economic benefit?

Yabby, you're welcome to your view that we in the West may be entitled to the bounties of the earth but Africans are less valuable than animals. IMHO, every African is as valuable as you are.

Fester, no, I'm not suggesting that as people age longer in future years, they necessarily will cost more in health costs - my point was more simply that they will draw on their pensions for longer, and they have to be paid for - in the event of a slow population reduction - by fewer and fewer working people.

In other words, any humane policy of population reduction, no matter how slow or fast, will impact on the ever-shrinking population of workers. Wait and see how China pans out.

Joe

I see Poirot and Sardine have something in common…..

They both post sneering responses to my suggestion that people be free of Big Government and able to make their own choices (some of us call it the difference between living and existing ) –

but to understand exactly what I mean, you also require some imagination

So what can I say…..

Poirot and Sardine are simply envious of those of us who have the courage to make choices for ourselves

or

That they lack the self confidence or maybe self esteem or whatever... they certainly lack something, leaving them unable to make their own life choices and need Big Government to make the big decisions on their behalf - “Nanny, I want my Nanny” style

Well, I feel sorry for any child inheriting those genes.

But don’t worry guys, it is written the meek will inherit the earth…..

all you have to do is wait around until all the real people, who stand up for themselves, decide they are tired of living.

"and those who drive Hyundai’s. lol.....would you like my rego No as well:) Look! There is nothing wrong with bring the facts to where the world sits. Now we all know the facts, maybe the right changes will be made spiner, and the putting your heads in the sand wont save you:)

You sit in front of the same computer window as I do, and 7 billion people and its effects just wont go away. Martin Luther king was killed, JFK was killed also for what he believed in, and many more. See people who up-set the apple cart are not welcome with the truth, and do you know why?.......because there's NO money in it.

Go back to your corruption your all so fond of, and dont say you weren't warned.

LEA