“The anti-people faction are very weak on biology” (Cheryl).
By any reasonable assessment, “the anti-people faction” are those who foster a continuing escalation of numbers of humans as their deteriorating environmental resources (and therefore their social wellbeing) diminish under human pressure, and prospects for all of society become increasingly bleak.
Weak on biology - who?
There is no shortage of concern about excessive, and increasing, human population pressure among genuine biologists. Among their number, over many years, can be listed: winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology; the man who signed off the declaration on eradication of Smallpox; the “father” of the agricultural “green revolution”. There is a great heap more - fine, compassionate folk, all. Those “weak on biology” are the genuinely anti-people campaigners - such as Cheryl

Cheryl

Your belief in the ZPG apocalypse would suggest that you are the one with a single lens train of thought. Perhaps you should back up your claims of the ZPG apocalypse with real examples? My concern with the high rate of growth in Australia relates to the large government debt and infrastructure shortfalls which have developed concurrently. The reality seems to contradict the pop-growth zealot's single focus that population growth is a prerequisite for prosperity.

The problem with current economic modelling; is it it enslaves people, when in fact it ought to be the people's slave. We do need to start thinking about ZPG and a genuinely sustainable economy? In fact, we now have a minister for sustainable economy.
We have to stop thinking about Australia as this big wide brown empty land but rather; the rather narrow green coast hugging green belt, which supports most of us and around 70% of our current if fundamentally flawed economy.
I don't believe we need ever do anything about our fertility rate, which is inclined to fall with every economic contraction, and has only risen recently on the back of baby bonuses?
Gone forever are the days when a single breadwinner could support a household and or a large population boosting brood.
It is interesting to know where internal migration patterns are heading? Could it be that a few of us have decided we want to move some way inland ahead of the climate caused ice melt currently under-way, which is likely to see much of our coastal cities regularly inundated and or largely uninhabitable.
As for migration and refugees? We need to insist/mandate that they settle in small hamlets or towns, where the housing is relatively limited and where they will simply have to merge with the dominant culture rather than; create clan controlled tribal ghettos, which perpetuate a completely alien culture/cultural attitudes and lifestyle; or indeed, much of the crime wave currently besetting our major population centres? Rhrosty.

On the charge of indecently tampering with demography, perhaps dempografix should also stand in the dock and be judged. And if I were allowed to nominate the beak at the bench, it would be Professor Albert Bartlett; specious data would be thrown out of court.
According to UNFPA, Sub-Saharan Africa now accounts for 12 per cent of the world’s population, and has an annual rate of growth of 2.2 per cent.
We can only guess what lies ahead as population increases - disease, warfare, starvation, and migration will continue to intervene, but to what extent? What evidence is there to assume a lessening growth rate while the more-developed nations continue to minimize aid in the matter of lowering fertility (fundamentally education and emancipation of women in reproductive issues for the region). They are already incapable of educating and fostering their young towards this necessity.
At 2.2 per cent growth rate, their numbers will double in one generation. But wait, “they will have an aged problem” if fertility rates declined to 2.1. At this stage the judge can be expected to mention mathematics and the absurdity of continuing an exponential approach towards infinity; as the centre of world population slides slowly from one part of the planet to another. Inattention to fundamental mathematical detail in demographics, fostering a “she’ll be right mate” won’t enhance wellbeing of society.
This unique green orb won’t be unbalanced by a shift of population centre from northern hemisphere to the south; nor is the Australian continent going to suffer an orogenic disaster by shifting populations. But we will continue going down the gurgler if we continue with the demographic transition of the past two centuries. Demographic stability is a necessity - at numbers enabling social cohesion and the necessary environmental resources to be maintained

Mmmm... where did I say that an increasing population is a good thing?
Have a look at two of the three projections on the UN chart on this page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
And below it the peak in global population growth was in the 1950's, It has been reducing every since.

Anotherf view on the decreasing growth of global population.
http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950–2050.svg

I stand in the dock with some data.

In God we trust, all others must bring data.

Compared to the rest of the developed world, America is still enjoying a major population boom. After all, Japan's population is shrinking. So is Germany's. Europe as a whole is still growing, but not by much. And after 2020, it begins to shrivel up too.
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/the-growing-shrinking-us-population/2012/04/20/