So, Pericles, in the face of all the argument put forward by Poirot and Squeers (and some others), and of the entirety of Julian's article, the best you can finally offer is:

<There may well be "repercussions". There may also emerge new technologies created by a newly-educated half-billion people. We can only hope for the best.>

"We can only hope for the best"? I thought the whole point of the article, and of what Poirot and Squeers have been arguing, is that the time for "hoping for the best" is long since passed, and it is now time to face the brutal realities of the inevitable consequences of continuing down the current path of our global civilisation.

A nice try all the same, Pericles, but at the end of the day the only possible long-term future for humanity must be through the attainment of a genuinely sustainable utilisation of planetary resources - given, of course, that humanity doesn't genetically modify itself into oblivion in the meantime (and possibly a host of other natural life with it) through the impact of toxins released into the environment.

Production efficiencies, within the confines of the necessary sustainability model, will determine the size of the cake; and population will determine the size of each person's just share. The equitability of the division of that bounty will be the ultimate demonstration of humanity's progress towards true "civilisation".

In farming models, a deficiency in any one element determines the limitation of productivity - and so it must be in any Earth productivity analysis.

Although some are inevitably planning a diaspora to greener fields within the cosmos, we'd do well to maintain our Earth garden in the meantime.

What can we do? We can hope and agitate - hope that politicians and world powers will heed articles and arguments like those of Julian Cribb (and Poirot and Squeers), before it is too late; and hope that populations around the world can pressure governments to take heed of all the warning signs of an emerging crisis in long term sustainability.

Pericles:
<Generalizing about the morality of capitalism or the potential long-term issues is all very well and virtuous, but it ignores the daily realities for a large number of individuals>.

I haven't been generalising about morality, nor attempted to seem virtuous, merely self-reflexive (on behalf of Western conceit) and critical of what I see as the ruinous and runaway dynamic the human race has inflicted upon itself and the world.
Your "specific" point, on the other hand, about the improvement in the quality of life of your half a billion Chinese, is a breathtakingly generalised assessment, and does tend to grandstand on the moral high-ground--tacitly obviating any critical scrutiny at all!
Surely before we go celebrating it as the biggest and brightest economic miracle in the history of capitalism, we need to make detailed qualitative assessments of both the alleged improvements and the myriad collateral effects both in China, internationally and ecologically. The scale of industrialisation in China, India et al dwarfs anything undertaken by the West in the last two hundred years, yet the environmental catastrophes we currently face are attributable merely to it!
Surely it's the height of folly to give a big tick to hyper-capitalism, based on the highly dubious contention that it's improving quality of life, when it's simultaneously and demonstrably driving the whole planet towards disaster?
I agree with you on one thing, that there's nothing any of us can do about it individually; though seeking to wake up the masses might lead to a willingness for meaningful change. In any case, facing up to stark realities--not "Hand-wringing regret and pursed-lipped disapproval"--is in my book much healthier than denialism.

Nevertheless, I shall consider your optimism further, and I thank you and others for the engagement.

*Production efficiencies, within the confines of the necessary sustainability model, will determine the size of the cake; and population will determine the size of each person's just share*

That sounds so wonderful Salpetre, yet of course it is deeply
flawed. For of course lets say I use a bit more of my share,
as you call it. You meantime, even though you don't fully
use your share, create another 10 people, in your selfish desire
to leave your genetic heritage spread around the planet.

In real terms what you do is far less sustainable then what I do.
What you do will do alot more damage then what I do.

We are back to Squeers analogy of a mouse plague. Ignore the
total number of mice at your peril, for the larger the numbers,
the more will croak it when the resources run out.

Given that we are adding another billion in just over every
decade, it remains the elephant in the room, no matter how
many feelgood solutions are posted. Yet we continue to ignore
relatively simple solutions to address it.

SPQR,

Destroying the productive capacity of the environment is not the way to any sort of sustainable solution or future for Indians. The groundwater shortage is just as much tied to new agricultural practice as it is to overpopulation.

The groundwater issue wasn't as critical in the past as it is now. I've posted numerous links citing World Bank and IMF "conditions" for assistance that have exacerbated environmental degradation (in cahoots with various Indian administrations). These conditions encourage practices that are unsustainable. Free electricity for water pumping, for example, means that many pumps are operating day and night so that the soil has nutrients flushed away into rivers and aquifers. The solution for most peasant farmers, of course, is to top up the nutrient (purchased from multinationals). Erosion and loss of soil productivity in the longer term are the results.

Pericles,

Of course, you wouldn't dream of querying the Chinese system of poverty measurement - or take into account that many believe their "poverty line" is set too low - or the fact that the urban poverty of migrant workers from the countryside is rarely taken into account.

"more like us"...well there you have it. If you believe that the term "not living in poverty" in China is an equivalent expression to "not living in poverty" in the West, then you are deluded.

It's interesting that the best you can come up with is to "hope for the best". Judging by attitudes like yours, the term "homo qui sperat pro optimus" may now be the most applicable reference for modern man. It may be all that's left in reserve for resource-depleted, foolish and rapacious man.

Squeers and Poirot,

I have not pretended that consumption in Western countries is irrelevant, unlike many on the Left, who want to claim that such consumption is the main problem, or even the only problem. The environment only cares about the total impact, and most of that is coming from the poor countries. As Paul Ehrlich once put it, "It doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low, if there are a hell of lot of caputs."

There is also the issue of what is overconsumption and who decides. We can probably all agree on getting rid of the really senseless forms of waste that don't actually benefit anyone. Beyond that, it seems that for many people, eliminating overconsumption means getting rid of the things that matter to you, but not to me. As former Senator Susan Ryan once put it, it won't be the charismatic male Greens who get to wash the cotton nappies by hand in home-made soap. Personally, I hate air travel and wouldn't care if it were priced out of the reach of most people. On the other hand, I really appreciate having a garden and a house that isn't so small that my family and I are always in each other's faces. Different people will have different priorities.

Different cultures make different decisions about the balance between numbers and quality of life. Are we obliged to shield people from the consequences of their own decisions, and are we enabling rather than helping if we do so? Giving everyone in even the existing global population a modest Western European standard of living would require the resources of 3 Earths, so those who want more sharing are talking about real sacrifices, not just getting rid of the luxuries of people richer than themselves.

*The solution for most peasant farmers, of course, is to top up the nutrient (purchased from multinationals).*

Poirot, you do go on about this. There is nothing wrong with
purchasing nutrients from multinationals. In fact if farmers did
not do so, most of you would have starved by now.

There is nothing wrong with irrigation either, nor GM seeds. Indians
would have continued to starve, if India had not changed its
agricultural practises.

Where India seems to have a problem is that some farmers misuse
technology and there seems to be little overall forthought or
planning. Well don't blame the IMF, the World Bank, nor those
seemingly evil corporations.

Today's cotton yields in India for instance, are 500% up on what
they were 60 years ago. That did not happen by magic. Fact is
if you want to keep cramming in more people and keep them all
fed, you have to use what technology is available to do it.

All farming is essentially mining, so replacing nutrients that
are removed, even if bought from those "evil" corporations, makes
perfect sense and for the moment is keeping the wheels on the
ever growing population cart.

If Australia's farmers for instance, did not use potash and
phosphorus, production would be virtually zilch. Our soils are
old and clapped out. So thanks to Allah that those corporations
(bless them) are investing in those mines! If we relied on
Poirot et al, we'd starve. Hunter gathering is no longer an option.