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.

4-5 decades have passed, the world has done nothing about the population dragon and the global population has tripled since the start of the green revolution.

It may no longer be possible to develop the third world and educate woman in order to reduce global fertility - not enough resources and to much demographic momentum for the slow pace of development and education.

It is a universal truth of life that the longer that you dither and deny on a problem the bigger the problem gets and the more difficult the choice you have to make.

It was true about Hitler and WW2 and it is true of over population.

Imagine the death and destruction that could have been avoided if Britain had simply assented Hitler during his ascendancy or bombed German military targets in the early 30s.

Ok, Boylesy, you have a point, and at least you put it more politely than Mr Windy, and maybe I am being utopian and unrealistic, so let's get very realistic.

8 Billion; and China with a more or less one child policy - anyone else? How about the U.S.? And, what about Oz with say 23 Million - would we be exempt? No, of course not, we're being fair and across the board. Ok, so, India, Japan, Indonesia, South America, Mid-east, Israel, Europe and Russia, etc. Where and how to start? Surreptitious aerial release into the atmosphere, or into water supplies, food chain or by UN Resolution and Mandate? (Maybe someone's doing it already?) And, anyone likely to object, or are all going to be fully amenable because all recognise the extent of the overpop problem. (Didn't some U.S. mob try sterilising a whole heap of Africans once - so well received, once revealed). And, would the U.S. go along? Guess we all know the answer to that.

Of course the stuff has to be cooked up and tested - say 5 years, 10, 20? Meantime, the West keeps gobbling resources like it's going out of style, on Gucci loafers and Prada fashions, Ferrari's and gold-plated toothpicks, while kids in Mumbai and Delhi live on rubbish tips eating garbage, South Africans keep murdering each other, and places like Columbia and the Congo go on business as usual, Iraq is again a dictatorship, and Afghanistan the happy poppy kingdom, while Pakistan becomes the new terrorism capital.

And, everyone's so concerned - why, there's you and me and some others on OLO, and there's Dick Smith, and some others of note I'm sure - though I haven't seen too many headlines. Funny that.

My propositions are idealistic, but just may be do-able, and could start immediately - if the powers showed the necessary interest and commitment. Where are they? Why do they not speak?

My proposition is to tackle inequity, give the repressed masses a better life choice, and so reduce conflict and extend opportunity. Is this so unfair and unrealistic?

Ok, Boylesy, you have a point, and at least you put it more politely than Mr Windy, and maybe I am being utopian and unrealistic, so let's get very realistic.

Mr Windy and Boylesy are one and the same. Were you being sarcastic or you haven't figured that out yet?

Clearly, if we were to go down the root of a biological vector, you would release it those regions with the highest fertility, possibly clandestinely as far as the general populous is concerned but perhaps in consultation with the governments of those regions.

Like I have said, many governments of countries with high fertility and significant political instability may well welcome population reduction and improved political stability.

"And, everyone's so concerned -"

There are not enough of us yet who comprehend the gravity of the problems or who are prepared to publicly acknowledge it. And that concern does not extend significantly into political realms that are still dominated by economic fundamentalism.

" Is this so unfair and unrealistic?"

Your proposals are entirely reasonable and fair, but never the less unrealistic. The tide of history is against them being acheived any time soon.

No, Boylesy/Windy, I had no idea. How very clever of you. (I did wonder though, why it was Boylesy who responded to my reply to the windy one, but recalled that I thought it was the former who introduced the idea of fertility repression in the first instance.) How very ordinary of me to think that we were all individuals, or do you have two parallel personalities? Now you make me wonder if Squeers and Poirot are one and the same; or even Poirot and Pericles - all founts of knowledge of depth and conviction. Poor me, I am just a singularity in my confusion, with no-one else to blame for my occasional transgressions.

Oh, and by the way, I am not keen on sarcasm, in any camouflage, and earnestly try to avoid it wherever possible.

"..many governments of countries with high fertility and significant political instability may well welcome population reduction and improved political stability."

So, Boylesy/Windy (B/W), no selective eugenics in that little slight of hand is there? And, of course, SOME governments might actually agree? No Big Brother in that either, I suppose? (Of course, Gadhaafi and Assad would rather just kill those who oppose them - a sure-fire way to ensure they're not going to have any more kids - and then use their soldiers to make up the pregnancy deficiency, but with good little loyalists. So, which dictator was it who elected his military right-hand to succeed him, and was promptly assassinated by the one and the same as soon as the handover was completed? So much for loyalty born in the blood. Maybe there's a chance for a different virus - the loyalty to poverty and enslavement virus?)
TBC>

B/W (Continued:)
One is of course taking the eye off the Big Picture - pop/climate/food/atmosphere/pollution/environment/conflict - all surrounding resource ravaging. So, is your main concern perhaps the too rapid depletion of fossil reserves, and thus, with no viable alternative in view, we just have to wipe out a few billion unwanted pregnancies to ease the pressure, and save our Western decadence for yet another day, when the West may be more amenable to doing its bit in the interest of global stabilisation? Good luck with that.

The repressed masses are numerous, but have a small carbon footprint. They have the means to operate sustainably - Brazil and ethanol powered vehicles, Indian rural sector with biomass (poo-powered) electricity generation, for example - all, low cost of living, low expectations, sustainably living manual labour. What amazing possibilities - with just a little help. Of course, you are also worried that with help to enable the masses to produce food for the world sustainably and with minimal climate or bottom-line impact, they will just breed up like rabbits. The trend in those Third World agricultural communities receiving a little help, with clean water, sanitation and modest education, demonstrates an enormous interest in improvement, in embracing the world, and in getting away from the burden of large families, and into the light from under the yoke of a daily fight for survival.

There is a better way, with conviction and vision. The question is, when and how may the West be willing to embrace it? Can mankind rise beyond decadence and dog-eat-dog, and share a brighter horizon?

Is Hope now a dirty word?

" or do you have two parallel personalities?"

No, merely a means of getting around the limit of 5 posts in 12 hours or what ever it is.

" we just have to wipe out a few billion unwanted pregnancies to ease the pressure, and save our Western decadence for yet another day, when the West may be more amenable to doing its bit in the interest of global stabilization? Good luck with that."

I do not condone current western excess or population control in order to facilitate its continuation. As I have said on countless occasions before, the west's obligation to cut its consumption is equal to the developing world's obligation to cut its fertility.

But I do defend western civilization more broadly. It is clearly superior to the Taliban and Syria etc.

"The repressed masses are numerous, but have a small carbon footprint. "

First of all 2,000,0000,000 third worlders each with a environmental impact still have potentially have a greater environmental impact than several hundred million westerners living a decedent life style.
You are wasting your time pretending that number is less important than individual consumption.

Secondly those 2 billion or so with a small carbon foot print all aspire to the same decadent western life style.

"Is Hope now a dirty word?"

A wise leader is one who hopes for the best but plans for the worst.