That's pure denialism Yabby.
Read some of the information in the link below, from where I've taken the following quote, Or show me some contrary evidence. The big picture is precisely what I do see. But I'm done with the Mr Magoo here.

"“If the consumption aspirations of the wealthiest of nations cannot be satiated, the prospects for corralling consumption everywhere before it strips and degrades our planet beyond recognition would appear to be bleak.”

"Despite rising consumption in the developing world, industrial countries remain responsible for the bulk of the world’s resource consumption—as well as the associated global environmental degradation. Yet there is little evidence that the consumption locomotive is braking, even in the United States, where most people are amply supplied with the goods and services needed to lead a dignified life".
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810

*Despite rising consumption in the developing world, industrial countries remain responsible for the bulk of the world’s resource consumption*

Well indeed its industrial countries, Squeers. As around the world
they move from the farms to the cities, industries develop and
grow. Industries use resources, be that in China, India, Brazil,
Singapore, South Korea and all the other nations moving to have
a larger consumer class. Globally the consumer class is massively
growing. Even in Russia, where people used to queue up to buy
bread, they are now living it up.

Add up those billions of people moving upwards and you have a
problem, not because Europe, the USA and Australia are consuming
more. In fact as technology develops, their per head consumption
is not rising at all or hardly.

But whilst we are adding a quarter of a million a day to the global
population, the whole discussion is pointless. Don't talk to me
about poverty and hunger, whilst they pop out 6-10 babies and then
we send boatloads of food to feed them all, only to see the problem
double. Thats more like human feedlotting.

Yabby,
I meant to use the term Mr Magoo in the plural above.
Thanks anyway for illustrating the point that there's no objectivity here at all. You condemn those who "pop out 6-10 babies" and defend those who consume just as disproportionately.

so long as we are setting the gold standard of consumption, showing total disregard for sustainability, emerging industrial nations are entitled to aspire to the same. Of course it's an impossibility, and they'll pull us over the cliff with them. There's a certain poetic justice to it, I think.
"we send boatloads of food to feed them all, only to see the problem
double".

We send the food to try and make ourselves look respectable, but it won't last.

"Thats more like human feedlotting".

No it's not. They know a lot more about the real of life and death than we do.

Yabby,

You are spot on, this will be the root cause of most of our future woes:
<<the developing countries are adding over 80 million to the population every year and the poorest of those countries are adding 20 million, exacerbating poverty and threatening the environment.>>
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2010/2010wpds.aspx

I think the non-growth new world envisaged by Squeers' might look something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXmrxWmbHCU&feature=related

Well yeah, Yabby, you can buy top quality and you can buy stuff online but, judging, from my visit to Perth today, people are still thronging in their hordes just for the sake of consuming. My first visit to IKEA, which apparently is a small nation state in Osbourne Park. It's so big I suspect it has its own climate, in any case, there are arrows painted on the floor to to guide you as you glide effortlessly through its galaxy (Just so you don't get lost, weighed down by your purchases, and never find your way to the check-out). I was spun out by the sheer number of people, the amount of shiny cars all hustling for a position in the car park, the air of manic single-mindedness on the faces...fascinating.
It didn't seem to me that anyone was saving fuel or cutting back on consumption - more like they were inclined to buy anything that might be remotely useful - or not. As far as paper savings goes, there were big bumper catalogues for free to augment the acres of junk mail that is deposited in suburban mailboxes everyday.

But, like you say, why should we cease our gluttony when we can sit back and blame it on the breeders in the third world, instead of putting our very clever homo sapiens brains to work to find a solution to both problems.

(Btw - the only thing I purchased was a new mouse pad because I needed it - but the education from the visit was priceless)

Inspired as I am by Poirot’s story of a day at the markets, where she satisfied her consumer lust by buying a mouse, but had her envy pricked by her neighbors shiny new cars (I hope she push-biked to the shopping centre!) here’s one from a different perspective.

Picture this scene from a poor developing nation:
A luckless family man and his de facto live in a run down shack with earthen floor & no running water. Despite neither having jobs they manage to produce six children.They are supported in part from contributions of the grandmother who works as a maid in Hong Kong, and what the grandmother can beg from an Australian she has befriended.After a time, and many fights, the family man leaves his wife and starts a new family with a new wife, with whom he has a further two kids (so far!). He still has no job.

But far be it for me to leave you feeling depressed ( as Poirot has unkindly done) my story has a ending, one that will leave you feeling all fuzzy and warm inside.The deserted wife and her six kids are not forlorn ,far from it.They have great expectations. They hold it as an article of faith that the grandmother will soon marry her Australian boyfriend and thereafter arrange to sponsor them all to OZ . Where ,empowered by their newly received Centrelink payments, they will all join the shopping throng in a crowed centre near you.