Michael Kile,

Thanks for your post on the occasion of the birth of the seventh billionth child.

We welcome its arrival into our happy midst.

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong

1. Food production has peaked. The cost of oil based fertilisers became too expensive for further expansion after 2008 GFC.
When OIL goes $200 per barrel (V. soon) say Sayonnara Pollyanna. Meanwhile world populaion is rising EVERY year by 73 million and the rate is INCREASING

2. Women, educated & NOT, in case you, haven't noticed dress provocatively when the juices flow, for ONE reason. And it ain't to pleasure no man. Wake Up! You've been Hillaried. Clinton is the biggest promoter of world population growth on the planet. And its for American Hegemony not for Equal rights.

3. The SECOND LAW of THERMODYNAMICS does all the overstating. I can't stop it or compete. And if you think I overstate the case, think back to Yasi & VBlack Saturday.

4. I don't need offspring to complete my life. I have a mind. What I don't have is freedom from 73 million new humans EVERY year wanting to be first world consumers , stopping at nothing to achieve that while YOU sit around oblivious thinkingh you are the only one that's GOT one. Dill!

Say NO to KIds!

Its TIME to be SUSTAINABLE. Not BIGGER than Nature will ever allow on this pale blue dot at the behest of a few shagnasty politicians, CEOs and assorted other dissatisfied LOSERS who like Adolph Hitler will soon be wondering where they too went wrong.

It would appear that the anti-Malthus brigade do not understand simple mathematics. Let me explain in simple terms. If the world population was to increase at a rate of a very conservative one percent per year, in 100 years time it would increase by 2.7 times. This means that by 2111 the population would be around 19 billion. In a further 100 years it would be 51 billion and so on.

I notice that mention has been made of better contraception methods. It seems that in spite of this, fertilty rates have not fallen to anywhere near replacement rates except in Japan and a few others. Sooner or later, it is inevitable that the consumption of resources must completely overwhelm the supply which is exactly as Malthus predicted.

Cheryl, I suggest that you back and brush up on your own wonky maths.

David

Curmudgeon,

You admit that Malthus was right about the period before the Industrial Revolution. Since then, technology has mostly been able to keep ahead of population growth, although Gregory Clark's book points out that many Africans today actually have lower living standards than in the past. Your belief that technology will always manage to keep ahead, world without end, however, is purely a matter of faith, not knowledge. Our wonderful progress could just be the equivalent of a winning streak for a problem gambler. After all, the popular science writers of the 1940s and 1950s were predicting wonderful things for us today: flying cars, the elimination of cancer, regrowth of amputated limbs, nuclear power too cheap to meter, 20 hour work weeks, etc., etc. How do you know that some of the technologies we will desperately need will not also be in the too hard basket?

You are also either in denial on or just ignoring all the environmental issues. In Malthus' day, societies could overpopulate, do local environmental damage, and then collapse, but unlike us, they couldn't affect the great natural cycles that support life on earth. We are getting warnings from the mainstream scientific community, often in the most respected peer reviewed journals, on shortages or losses not just of oil, but of other key non-renewable resources such as phosphate rock, as well as arable land, fresh water, biodiversity, fish stocks, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes. Marine chemist Richard Feely, for example, was on ABC radio last June and very concerned about ocean acidification due to all the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere. Measuring pH is hardly at the frontiers of science. The Global Footprint Network have done the math on our resource use and calculated that we are currently in 40% environmental overshoot, mostly because we are consuming renewable resources faster than they can be replenished.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010

This implies that we could very well be in serious trouble even if population growth stops tomorrow. Why jump into the water before checking out how deep it is?

Curmudgeon,
I've still got all those "Doomsday" books, "Apocalypse 2000" is one that comes to mind, then there's the fiction of J.G Ballard, I've got pretty much everything he wrote, "The Drought","Running Wild" etc. The only one that's coming to pass is "The Camp Of The Saints" by Jean Raspail and that outcome was so blindingly obvious from the start.
There's always something freaking out White intellectuals and we're always doing fine, if there are no White people running around like chicken Little then that'd be the time I'd start worrying.
That's the thing, White people overcame scarcity maybe 10,000 years ago, so in the absence of any real pressing concerns regarding shortages or famine the clever White people have had to invent scenarios to worry about, I suppose they'd go mad if they didn't keep occupied.
There was a survey of East African primary producers a few years ago, when asked about the causes of crop failures and famines the most popular response was "God", followed by "Poor land management by neighbours".

Loudmouth,
Correction, a large and sustained immigration program has been implemented destroy those societies and replace Europeans with Non Whites.
Call it what it is, Genocide.
Why not just let Europe's population fall back to pre industrial levels if that's the way it's headed?
You want to educate Third world women to the level of their Western (White) sisters then presumably leave them be, let their populations drop back to a sustainable level of their own accord, why not let Europe go the same way.
Why does Europe's Third World population have to grow and the Third World's population of Third worlders fall?

I'm surprised at that post, usually you do a better job of concealing the fact that you're Anti White but in the end you guys always admit to what you really believe, you support Genocide in White countries and only White countries.