Sorry I'm late;

In short, a rubbish article trying to convey that the "world" is overpopulated (it's not, really)- and we need to do our part for these poor souls (and for the domestic real-estate industry) and take em in.

One question- where in Australia are they to go?

Mr Windy, "Biomass" electricity generation - the logical start-point for required Third World (particularly African) development. From this starting point, all things are possible; without it (or equivalent alternative), the downward spiral accelerates.

The world is not yet at breaking point, or even at point of no return - things would be far worse if it were. No, there is time, but the West's recalcitrance, and refusal or denial of the scope of the immediate and impending challenge, is nothing short of mass delusion - if it doesn't bite them, it's steady as she goes. I wonder how many ancient civilisations went down the tubes in the same state of mind. Abandon ship? To Where?

Of course, with all the focus on the U.S. v China competition (quietly of course) to be "biggest boy on the block", and others shuffling to keep "alliances" in order, none of those in a position to address this pop problem are even giving it a second thought - just as long as "they're alright Jack" when the last of the chips falls.

So, Squeers and Windy, your solution is arbitrary euthanasia, which could just eliminate the next Einstein or Newton, who just might be the one person with the answer to the sustainability question, or for Stephen Hawkins' diaspora to colonise the galaxies.

Squeers, there is an easily accessible medium for "Deliberative Democracy" - it's called the Internet and ONLINE-Forum. Do our governments consult or utilise this medium? I wonder - who may be listening? (Wishful thinking?)

Focus - that's what's needed - and the prime question is how to generate that focus.

The human mind - such a strange mechanism. The same people who cry "compassion" at the plight of refugees, and cry "foul" at the concept of eugenics, can glibly propose "random infertility". No contradiction there, is there? The same people who "liberate" their countries from colonial rule or such, go on to become dictators and oppressors of those same citizens - Mao? Gadhaffi? Mugabe?

Extraordinary and inexplicable "insanity" of differentiation? Solve the mind, solve the problem. Too simple?

Loudmouth et al "Alternatively, GregaryB, all of us in western countries (which are using by far the lion's share of the world's resources) could cut back drastically on our living standards, as we help to raise those in Third world countries, so that it's all equalised out ? "

If you raise the standard of living of the worlds poor to even a half the standard of the west, you would have to get rid of more than the people living in the richer western countries to compensate.

As far as fertility control is concerned, it seems to me that the present generation of youth are doing their best to spread those sexually transmitted diseases which do just that. The pity is that the medical profession are also finding ways to cure them as well as making it possible for babies to be born who would normally be naturally aborted.

Why don't we listen too all these expert people about banning everything, stopping everything, don't do this, don't do that, blah blah blah, then the world will reduce its population by half.
What percentage of our total edible trade goes to 3rd world countries or dry arid countries or small under developed countries or over populated countries.
If it wasn't for our greed we could see a positive reduction of population in these countries, depopulating through natural attrition.
We support overpopulation by sending our goods to them.
I have read a couple of times now that we have not hit the high mark for over population.
Workout how much room for growing grain we would need to support a population of vegans. Is there enough room?
How long before population pressure in, say China, before their need to expand, just for agricultural land, into where, Russia.What would happen then?
The world's sea water level does rise and fall (even without help from us humans) so countries like Sri Lanka, the Maldives and most of the polynesian Islands will be under water and lots of low lying land in plenty of other countries will be lost. more pressure on the few countries that would be able to support an ever increasing population.
I recon we have the ability to grow our population still, but it will have dire consequences.
It appears that we are willing to forgo our childrens,childrens rights so that again we can please our insatiable appetite for our right to do as we please.

@VK3AUU: as well as making it possible for babies to be born who would normally be naturally aborted.

I had that driven home to me a week or two ago. A friend who is a high school science teacher came in and had a whinge about how hard it was to teach his grade 9's about electricity. I jokingly suggested he get them to make a Leyden jar and then hook the class up to it.

He said in all seriousness "oh no, I can't do that". I asked why not. He replied he might kill some of them, as a few students in his school had defibrillator implants. On seeing the stunned look on my face he said "oh yes, many of the kids I teach would not of made it to their 1st birthday in our day".

How does a country's population decrease, apart from immigration and emigration ? Through fewer babies being born than older people dying, below the point where births outnumber deaths.

Since we surely must rule out the fascist/eugenicist non-solutions for across-the-board population reduction of 'others', such as spreading viruses or launching wars, how can we stabilise and slowly reduce world-wide population ? Educate women in developing countries, and provide free contraception services, certainly. How to do that wholesale would require changes in many other ways, not least the ability of their governments to fund those initiatives.

But even assuming that the funds were available long-term to provide for generations of women's education, we have to face the fact - which contributors here seem to be ignoring - that to reduce the population in any country, one has to CAREFULLY encourage a lower fertility level, SLIGHTLY fewer babies being born in each generation than deaths and loss by emigration: population reduction does not occur at the top end, but at the bottom, with the births, the beginning of the life-process.

No matter how you bend it, that means that in the next generation, there would be fewer workers than in this one, and fewer again in two generations' time. Fewer babies means fewer workers to carry the tax burden generated - quite properly - by the comparatively more numerous older generations.

And as more people stay healthier for longer, and live longer, then the pension payments to which they are fully entitled will act as a larger drag on the tax contributions of fewer workers with the passing of each generation.

But the faster the reduction in population, the more drastic will be the effects of this shrinkage of the work-force in each successive generation. Let's be clear: to reduce population means increasing the burden of younger generations - in 2011, that means Gen Y and whoever is to follow them.

We work for roughly two generations. A gradual, not drastic, reduction in population over centuries would make it easier for Gen Y, and for our children's children. And theirs too.