Thank you Colinsett for at least mentioning Africa.

Africa has a population problem or rather a lack of education problem. As population growth trends down across most of Europe and industrialised Asia, Africa's population will still grow.

Why don't the anti-people lobby talk about Africa?
Why do they want to cut foreign aid to Africa?
Why to they keep thinking that Sydney has the same problems as Nigeria?
Why do they want to sterilise people?
Why are they against the technological research to develop medicines?
Why are they against technology per se?

The end of the world is not nigh. The end of the world is not even close to nigh unless of course the anti-people lobby keep spreading their catastrophist agenda.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/Long_range_report.pdf

Please read this UN document.

The UN does not specifically predict that the global population will reach stability any time soon.

It merely specifies 3 predictions based on different assumptions about average fertility in future decades.

The more likely scenario is that the global population will crash long before it hits 9 billion due to resource depletion, climate change and particularly oil depletion since our current global food production is heavily dependant on cheap oil.

But the UN conveniently leaves that tangible out because it is unpopular. No one wants to face bad news no matter how imminent.

"Why do they want to sterilise people?
Why are they against the technological research to develop medicines?
Why are they against technology per se?"

Oh dear Cheryl! The same old clap trap from imbecile boosters!

No one is advocating sterilisation. That is a blatant slurr on your part!

*Why don't the anti-people lobby talk about Africa?
Why do they want to cut foreign aid to Africa?
Why to they keep thinking that Sydney has the same problems as Nigeria?*

We talk about Africa all the time, Cheryl. The more foreign aid
that we send, the more babies they have, because we don't send them
family planning help, it might upset the Catholics. Sydney will
land up with the same problem eventually, because under the Refugee
Convention that we signed, when they are all fighting over there
because of tribal conflicts etc, they can all seek asylum here
and we'll let them in to keep the Kumbayah crowd happy.

I'll try a different tack.

So you both believe that the highest projection - that population will go spinning wildly out of control over the next 50 years? And that the cause of this will be African birth rates?

Yet so far, apart from Yabby's comment just then, there has been no mention of Africa in any anti-pop rhetoric. From the anti-people faction (although it's hard to tell which faction) the talk has been fundamentally about reducing Australia's population. I include the link from Frau Kanck about the Sustainable Population Lobby targets.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/democrats-reject-kanck-one-child-plan/story-e6freo8c-1225701581801

So all of the end of the world hocus pocus /sea levels rising/comets/scorpions popping out of the ground/Book of Revelations stuff, is about Africa?

Yet we're all doomed anyway because the resources on the earth is finite, right? All we can do is eek out our final miserable days until we run out of everything at the same time, everywhere all over the world, without a hope in technology, capitalist ingenuity, science, progress or any of the stuff.

Is that the line you guys are going to use to win over the voters?

You guys are wasted on us here. Honest. Africa needs you.

Cheryl, your new tack is as flawed as your old tack.

Fact is that population is a global issue. Its taken us 12 years or
so to add another billion. We can't just keep adding billions, as
we can't even feed the present 7 billion sustainably.Note the
fish population, compared to what it once was, an an example.

The massive global population explosion has happened on the back
of cheap and easy to mine resources, but those days are nearly over.
Rather then all this amazing technology, we're simply stealing
ever more resources from other species and wiping them out in the
process. I personally think that they have a right to a bit of this
planet too, not just ever more Cheryls

Why are we against technology?

Well Cheryl dear perhaps it is because growing numbers of people are beginning to instictively understand that technology has brought us to this crisis in the first place.

E.G. the Technology of the green revolution that failed to eliminate poverty but rather caused the global population to tripple from 2 billion to 6 billion in a mere few decades in fact making poverty more wide spread in the end.

E.G. There would be no global warming if oil was not discovered and if scientists had not devised ways to use it as an energy source.

E.G. There would be no multiple antibioitic resistant bacteria if scientists had not developed antibiotics.

More precisely it is not technology per se but rather the irresponsible expolitation of that technology at a society level.

And scientists share some of that responsibility for doing very little to ensure that their technology is used responsibly by society and particularly governments and companies.

What is needed is a global scientific body to which all scientists must be a member in order to gain employment in science and to have their work acknowledged.

That body would have the power to instruct scientists not to work on any technology if it is deemed that the governments and companies concerned are intending to use it irresponsibly. And the power to revoke the membership of scientists who choose not to comply with their governing bodies decisions.

It would have characteristics of current unions that can place green bans on given projects and the medical regulatory boards that require medical practitioners to comply with accepted scientific and moral standards and that can revoke the right to practice medicine of those standards are not adhered to.

We need to get rid of this idividualistic wild west attitude by indivual scientists, that has contributed to our current predicament, and forge the scientific community into one or more carefully regulated organisations, that all scientists must be a member of one, and with significant political power that rivals the business/economic lobby.