Humans are massively overpopulated in every country. There is no excuse for advocating a stable population number at current levels. Our numbers in every country must go down and the sooner and faster the better. Our goal must be to have a population age distribution that is shaped like an upside down pyramid, where there are a lot of old folks compared to young ones. That's the only way to get our numbers down peacefully.

Why is this a certain fact that we are overpopulated? Because we are consuming resources that are essential to provide for our numbers faster than those resources renew. Imagine the situation where there's a huge stock pile of food on the planet, plus some amount is grown each year. If we are in the situation where we consume all the food that grows, plus that stock pile of food, then we are certainly overpopulated. We are doing exactly that by consuming fossil fuels, uranium, and a collection of other resources. If we do not burn fossil fuels, we collectively have no clue how to feed 7 billion people. We can't plant, fertilize, harvest, package, distribute, and store the necessary food to feed 7 billion without consuming those resources. There's no difference between the situation where we must eat into a stock pile of food, and our current situation where we must burn fossil fuels

JohnTaves
Upsidedown pyramid?
Mmmmm... and then they die.
What sort of population number do you think Australia should have. An inverted pyramid would mean serious outcomes. Over a generation or two you would reduce by 90%?

At the moment the pig is moving into the back end of the snake. The snake now can not move and water and food need to be brought to it. Eventually the snake poops the pig out and takes off again, remembering never to eat a pig again. 2060....

<Bottom line is that it certainly is not the time to be trying to cut our current below replacement fertility rate.>

No, the bottom line is that you are basing your pessimism on the most inaccurate predictor known to mankind, the long range economic forecast. And if that isn't stupid enough, you seem to be totally ignorant of the real and present damage being caused in Australia by the current high population growth.

More immigration as a solution is moronic as it does little to change the age profile in the long term. Moreover, in the short term it creates a huge infrastructure burden for government, thus taking vital resources away from the most effective means of dealing with an aging population, better health and education. Resources should instead be put toward making people healthier, better educated, and consequently more productive.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/12/25/vaccine-hope-for-sufferers-of-auto-immune-diseases-like-crohn-s-and-rheumatoid-arthritis-115875-23658845/

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2011/Dec/new-diabetes-treatment-breakthrough-claimed-99925352.html

No, the bottom line is that you are basing your pessimism on the most inaccurate predictor known to mankind, the long range economic forecast.

demografix>> - No I am basing it purely on demographics, sociology. No economics included. I certainly am not pessimistic about the global population potentially peaking and then declining in my kids lifetime. Wow, it will certainly be a day to remember...

And if that isn't stupid enough, you seem to be totally ignorant of the real and present damage being caused in Australia by the current high population growth.

demografix>> - 66% of our NOM are temporary VISA holders. Students who are here longer than 12 months are included in our official rates and we have dropped from 2.1% to 1.4% in just over 3 years. We are growing at about 3 million per decade. So yes, I fully expect Oz to rise to approx 28 million and then start its population decline around 2035.

More immigration as a solution is moronic as it does little to change the age profile in the long term. Moreover, in the short term it creates a huge infrastructure burden for government, thus taking vital resources away from the most effective means of dealing with an aging population, better health and education. Resources should instead be put toward making people healthier, better educated, and consequently more productive.

demografix>> - Not lobbying for more immigration. Zero net NOM is my agenda.

Jenny Goldie is too sensitive to spell out how the world population will be reduced, although an intelligent 'read between the lines' makes it pretty clear that starvation is the answer. Of course the 'skeptics' will say 'Oh yes, we've heard that before from Erlich, Club of Rome et al. and it has not happened'. Those skeptics won't be around in the latter half of this century, but if they were I'm willing to wager they would be eating their words, which might be the only things left to eat.

From dempografix: "What sort of population number do you think Australia should have. An inverted pyramid would mean serious outcomes. Over a generation or two you would reduce by 90%?"

Yes, if we average fewer than 2 children, we would end up with an upside down population age distribution pyramid and that means our numbers would decline. That is the goal. A sufficiently low average rate could indeed drop our numbers to 1/10th of what they are today in a few generations. That would be a very good thing indeed.

We must reduce our numbers until we are no longer consuming resources, that we depend on to feed our numbers, faster than those resources renew.

There is nothing debatable about that concept. People refuse to comprehend this with a variety of bad logic. One is to recoil at the thought of the world population at 1/10th of what it is now. That instinctive recoil is just wrong. There is no logic or reasoning that says that our current numbers are a good thing.

A world population of 700m would be much much better than a world population of 7b. Assuming no change in our consumption, we would use fossil fuels and produce carbon dioxide at 1/10th the rate. As the population declines and the energy needs decline, what are we going to do, stop feeding coal to coal fired power plants, or tear down damns? Obviously hydro and other renewable sources will make an ever increasing percent of our energy consumption.