To be even more blunt.....

Such circular arguments put forward by Saltpetre, i.e. have a bigger population in order to get more Einsteins and Newtons in order to solve the problems caused by a bigger population, are not befitting of a mature intelligent adult.

Sardine “population issue is that religious, political or ideological fundamentalism creates intellectual conflict and dissonance “
Somehow I suspect you lack the imagination to sense any intellectual conflict,
Leave worrying to those who can imagine what is clearly beyond your scope

Poirot “s sort of self-aggrandisment is a piffling version of middle-class decadence, but one that throws a light on the attitudes that drive Western hegemony”

Sounds like a lot of envy hidden behind negative

Mr Windy “I think a more humane and fair solution”

But the world is not a humane and fair place and any assertion to it being so is mere wishful thinking

Your
Option 1 will present problems coming in the form of the law of unintended consequences
Option 2 – regardless of your desires is unenforceable
Option 3 is not an option at all but the consequence of nature
And nature does know best

Houelle thanks for the support and observations

Poirot the way you go on…. I am blushing,,, you must be in love – sorry I am already taken

Gotta go… her loveliness wants to go to the casino

Col,

You are (surprisingly) perceptive.
I'll try and contain my ardour : )

Is that it Col? A little puff of anti-social methane and you're gone?

Typical of a political conservative, all tip and no iceberg.

Mr Windy, I don't mind if your stuck on your "infertility Pill", I just wish you wouldn't misread and then misrepresent what I've posted. You know full well my meaning in using the term "euthanasia" - it was in direct response to your magic "virus", and the key adjective was "indiscriminate".

You probably wouldn't support selective "eugenics" any more than I would, but the fact is the world would be better off if people of intelligence and means had a few children (maybe even a few more), and the least gifted had a few less. Your indiscriminate proposal is simply random, and that is my first objection. My main objection is, however, that there are better, and more acceptable ways to achieve population reduction - and by free choice.

My several posts on this thread have all been promoting population "reduction", including an attempt to highlight the enormity of the current very real "overpopulation" problem. Your last post accusing me of promoting pop growth in hopes of producing a pop "messiah" is therefore a total misrepresentation.

Biomass is already being used to produce electricity on a village basis, it is sustainable, and once established the running costs are minimal. You focus on the fossil resources required to establish infrastructure, but you ignore the use of sustainable energy to produce and maintain that infrastructure. You keep raising the inability of solar to replace fossil fuel (particularly oil) to meet current energy usage, but this whole issue is to reduce demand, and replace methods of provision - and coal can provide the bridge. There have to be alternatives, so just saying no is not an answer.

I have also made the point of approaching "peaks", so your protests in this regard are also groundless.

Loudmouth, I can only reiterate - in the new compact world order productivity will be greatly enhanced, less food will be required, and most things will be cheaper. Anyway, as others have posted, wages, wealth and largesse are very much at the root of current world problems, and a more equitable means of resource provision should be found.

"well my meaning in using the term "euthanasia" - it was in direct response to your magic "virus", and the key adjective was "indiscriminate".

Saltpetre I object to this misrepresentation of the purpose of my genetically engineered fertility control virus idea.

Its purpose is precisely not to kill or euthanize people.

Nor is its purpose to permanently sterilize people....another irrational misrepresentation of the whole idea.

The idea is to reduce the total time within an individuals life time that they are capable of successfully procreating. It wouldn't necessarily even have to be as effective as the 'pill'. As long as it causes a substantial reduction in fertility when averaged across 8 billion humans.

You probably wouldn't support selective "eugenics" any more than I would, but the fact is the world would be better off if people of intelligence and means had a few children (maybe even a few more), and the least gifted had a few less. Your indiscriminate proposal is simply random, and that is my first objection. My main objection is, however, that there are better, and more acceptable ways to achieve population reduction - and by free choice.

What you are proposing here Saltpetre is eugenic in character. You are saying that some humans are worthy of procreating more and some are not. Presumably you consider yourself to be in the fomer class.

The random nature of my virus idea is precisely to avoid eugenic strategies.

And again I point out to you that voluntary means of fertility control would be terrific but it is possible that we missed that boat in the 50s when we were warned by Norman Borlaug that he had merely bought us a few decades, with his green revolution, to tame the population dragon.

"and a more equitable means of resource provision should be found"

All sounds wonderful Saltpetre but it is utopian and unrealistic.