Bloody religious arguments...

*If I had six children in India, the lot of us collectively would still have a smaller global hectare resource demand or "footprint" than one American - and a roughly equivalent one to an Aussie.*

Not so Poirot. For of course rich Indians consume far more then
poor Australians. You have no way of predicting how environmentally
destructive your progengy will become. Then we have the little point
about their children and grandchildren.

Then we have the point about how figures are calculated. The coal
and other minerals mined in Australia, the food grown in Australia,
is largely not consumed by Australians, but is turned into mobile
phones and other devices and shipped all around the planet. It
is simplistic nonsense to blame Australians for all that consumption.

So my argument is pretty simple. If the population issue had been
addressed in the 70s, when it could have been and had women been
given a choice about their fertility at that point, today's global
population could well be half of what it is today. The environmental
inpact would be half of what it is today, far more sustainable.

Yabby,

That's all very well, but what about the American who has a modest family of two offspring? Each of those children has roughly the equivalent footprint of 8-9 Indians.... grandchildren.....etc.

And two thirds of Indians still live in rural districts - and many who have migrated to the city are poverty stricken...uneven distribution and all that. But I thought the prevailing mantra from the pro-growthers on this thread was to make them more like us - and now you're on about the minority of rich Indians.

*That's all very well, but what about the American who has a modest family of two offspring?*

They are simply replacing themselves, quite different to 6 times 6 etc.
Besides, the trend for Americans is now to consume less oil,
use more efficient cars, as energy prices increase this will be
more so. In the late 90s oil was still 10$ a barrel, no wonder it
was wasted. But society is adjusting, even if its taking time.

Meantime all those Indians are aspiring to live just like
Americans. Multiply extra people with growing aspirations in
the third world, you are bound to have a collapse, it does not
matter what the first world does. Its just a question of time really.

So, Yabby, it comes down to this:

<Multiply extra people with growing aspirations in the third world, you are bound to have a collapse, it does not matter what the first world does. Its just a question of time really.>

But, this IS the argument <Its just a question of time??> The problem we are digesting is how to avoid this otherwise undeniable outcome, yet you appear to dismiss First World excess and First World influence on the Third World via example, via material demand, and via World Bank and IMF activities, as being of any consequence in this progression to massive systems failure?

I don't believe earth systems, however carefully tuned, could support even a quarter of current world population in a manner now sought by virtually every individual in the West. (Total current world consumption probably already equates to two billion average Aussies, and systems failure IS clearly evident.) The world simply cannot endure a continuation at current levels, let alone more of the same.

If you are a farmer, then you should know that no-till is now widely employed, and not slash and burn, and that most soils (even a lot of our worn-out Aussie soils) contain most of the nutrients required for effective agriculture - on an appropriately scaled basis. Push soils too hard, and it doesn't matter what artificial inputs you use you are eventually going to experience collapse. Alternatively, by husbanding soil micro-systems one can ensure sufficient nutrient availability to sustain a balanced cropping or grazing regimen, requiring only minimal micro-nutrient inputs. Biological mechanisms can also limit predation, without pesticides.

Sure, phosphate, lime, sulphur and potash, etc, can be mined and redistributed, and oil and gas used to manufacture urea and pesticides, etc - but these remain finite and non-renewable resources, and overuse can only lead to ultimate system deterioration and collapse. Balance has to be achieved, and non-renewables employed sparingly until long term sustainability can become a reality.

Reduce population, and scale back lifestyle allowances. No other formula is evident - Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Very entertaining watching Pericles and Poirot getting snooty with each other!

Bravo!