Yes Malthus gets a good run in these usually stereotypical debates about population.

Those who support continual population growth will always resort to the extreme to state their position. May as well just accept any reference to overpopulation is aligned with genocide, racism, eugenics and restrictions on liberty. At the risk of being repetitive, there are ways to control populations without resorting to the extremes. We already do that to some extent with immigration quotas. Do the growthists think that it is in best interest to open up borders completely without any restrictions or quotas. It is unworkable and infrastructure will not cope or keep up with the influx.

What about reducing middle class welfare like baby bonuses which arose with the corresponding push for 'productivity' enabled by taxpayer funded institutionalised child care.

Freedom and human rights do not automatically equal unfettered growth.

It always bemused me at the lack of acknowledgment that unfettered population growth can lead to those same extremes of which the anti-growthists are accused, especially when people start competing and fighting for scarce resources like food and energy. It is happening already in wars being waged to secure oil interests.

But here we go again.

Like I said purchase and view. http://www.demographicwinter.com
There is nothing here that counters the arguments made in the Demographic Winter and the Demo Bomb. Speakers are mostly secular thinkers and scientists by the way, not Catholics. Also if your truly honest, those self righteous Catholics have a point. The Contraceptive Pill is an Abortaficent Device and does kill embryos, (i.e human life). It does not always prevent ovulation, nor conception. Even an honest atheist, (i.e truly ethical honest), would protect human life. You don't have to believe in a Soul to do that.

@Daffy Duck: Demographic Winter is of course produced by self righteous right wing Catholics and other denizens of the loony right in the USA.

@aga: The Contraceptive Pill is an Abortaficent Device and does kill embryos, (i.e human life).

And here I was mentally putting a black mark against Daffy for being over the top. Sorry Daffy.

Why not just come up with an agreed (suitable and relevant) population cap and operate within that range using the one in/one out style of operation.

This would allow compassion for refugees, skills requirements (ideally filled by appropriate domestic training), family reunions and general movement of people.

What a good idea, pelican.

>>Why not just come up with an agreed (suitable and relevant) population cap and operate within that range using the one in/one out style of operation.<<

Presumably you'd need to apply for a reproduction permit to comply with the "cap". You could make it tradeable, of course, so that you can (say) sell your permit to a Tamil refugee, rather than give birth yourself. And whenever a boatload of refugees landed, you could advertise for the collection of the requisite number of permits from the bleeding-hearts brigade, instead of pushing the boat back out to sea. Or shooting them, or whatever.

I can foresee a few problems arriving at the "cap" number, though.

As we have seen on this very forum, quite a few folks out there think we are already over the limit, so to speak. The issuance of "Special Permit Requisition (Offspring) Grants" (the "SPROG") would need to be delayed for a few years until the required number had popped their clogs. Which might create demographic imbalance some time in the future, but what the heck. That's not important.

Although, I suppose you could just say "that's enough" as of today - allowing an existing pregnancy to complete, of course, so long as it has been registered with the Department of Population Control, of course.

Hold on, though. Didn't you say...?

>>Those who support continual population growth will always resort to the extreme to state their position. May as well just accept any reference to overpopulation is aligned with genocide, racism, eugenics and restrictions on liberty. At the risk of being repetitive, there are ways to control populations without resorting to the extremes.<<

How would you operate your "one in/one out" scheme without restricting liberty?

Oh.

I see.

It is a "one in/one out" scheme, not "one out/one in".

That has potential, I can see.

It's the 3a.m. knock on the door, isn't it.

"Sorry, but someone just gave birth, and you've been selected to depart under the One In, One Out Act of 2012 (Cth)"

Yum. Tasty eugenic goodness for all.

<It has nothing to do with "doom", Fester. That is the province of the population control freaks.>

I advocate no intervention other than to make contraception available to those who want it. What we have in Australia is policy to increase the population, and I cannot see why it is justified.

< It has to do with economics, and the effect of an ageing population on income distribution.>

What you base your prediction of doom on is an economic model, which, like the doom laden prediction of Thomas Malthus, takes no account of the impact of new technology. Nor do I understand how high immigration will change the age profile substantially: What it has done is to greatly increase public debt due to the expensive infrastructure required for the modern standard of living.

I think it far more sensible to develop technologies and policy to make people healthier and more productive: Making the population younger with immigration seems to be an impossible objective unless you plan to exterminate old people. You aren't planning on exterminating old people are you, Pericles?