Greg. An interesting article well constructed. It has been observed that populations that increase the educational level of all, and particularly the female component of that population, results in a decrease in population growth. Equally, those populations that move from abject poverty towards a 'middle class' level of existance, also have a commensurate reduction in population growth.

One could argue that growth and development resulting in wealth generation, higher educational levels and increased health benifites are the most effective factors in reducing population growth. Witness the population growth figures of the wealthy first world countries.

It could be suggested that the arguments against development and wealth generation
espoused in your paper could be the greatest factor in maintaining the status quo with
respect to population growth.

To propose the notion that CO2 is a 'pollutant' or a 'toxic substance' (as labled by the
American Environmental Protection Agency), as opposed to an airbourn nutrient essential for the wellbeing of the biosphere and mankind, is to promote the limitation/reduction of the single most effective ellement on the planet that directly addresses the very problem you refer to.

I agree with your identification of the problem, but submit the above as 'just a thought'
On one of a possible number of solutions.

You are quite correct that environmental activism without restricting population growth is actually worse than no environmental activism at all. See "To save the world we may have to waste it":

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6998

At this stage of the game, growth is not development and it is certainly not progress!

Great article Greg. The environmental elephants you mentioned are real but they are not the only drivers of unsustainable population and consumption in both the developed and the developing world. Innovation in our education, business and economic systems and models is essential in transforming individuals, communities and nations towards happiness, wellbeing, engagement and collective impact for a better future. We need a new generation of leaders and organisations that can deliver real change.

Well that was the longest advertisement I have read on OLO, & not even for a book.

I suppose if you find doing something is not all that profitable, it's not a bad idea to move on, & sell something that doesn't exist. Sure keeps the investment in stock down.

I think there's a name for that, but I'm having an old-timers day, & don't want to remember it.

I rather like this anti-pop article.

For one thing its written by someone who works and who isn't dancing half stoned in Byron Bay twirling a fire stick.

Just a few comments. The speed of population growth is plummeting in most western nations. Plus most of Europe, the US the UK, Japan and Australia will also have to find ways to ensure the Boomer cohort doesn't saddle us with debt - that's the elephant in the room.

There is an annoying and persistent fallacy that Australia or anywhere else is over populated. This is simply not correct. The only country in the world which has a population problem - and its major - is Africa.

Over-population is a common theme in this sort of writing, and has been since the 1930s at least, but no-one has been able to convincingly show that there is some limit to population or to resources. Every time mass starvation or permanent oil shortages are forecast for such and such a decade, the forecasts turn out to be completely wrong.

There is a hard example to hand in recent news bulletins. Those of you who recall recent warnings that there is some limit to energy resources in the foreseeable future, should look up the discovery of gas hydrates off the coast of Japan. Major, major gas reserves discovered. Sorry, but you've got to foget about limits to energy reserves for a generation or so..