OK. I've got it now.

You're for Kanck's one child policy in Australia but against any form of technology to help us escape the day of reckoning which must surely come because of the earth's finite resources.

You fly the flag of Marx but goose-step like eco-facists and green neo-ascetics.

You've taken the 'end of history' thing literally and now, using in almost incomprehensible fear campaign, you want to destroy capitalism in Australia even though you admit the real problem is in Africa.

Actually, that's not quite right. You want to destroy global capitalism while creating a society of scientists who are forbidden independent research and free speech. You're for contraception but not the technology to develop it.

You don't believe Australia can feed itself even though we EXPORT $46 billion of food every year and import $6 billion through reciprocal trade agreements.

You're against foreign aid because the food makes people breed more. Anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of 'thought crime'.

For the Sustainable People Lobby and their agents, humans are just like rabbits - without any form of determinism or agency.

You reflect the intellectual poverty of our times. You are part of the problem - not part of the solution. You enjoy the benefits of living in an affluent and democratic country but you are doing everything in your power to undermine it.

Go Cheryl... Keep telling the truth, although the ignorant are far more likely to just ignore it.

66% of our NOM are temporary VISA holders. International students, who are here longer then 12 months and who must return home, are counted in our official population growth numbers. Peaking emigration is ignored and demographic momentum is not understood at all it seems.

I can rest in the knowledge that my kids will most likely see a global peak in population and then its decline. They will start to look out the front window, instead of all this rear view mirror policy suggestions by the ignorant.

The real issues for our population are more about our lone occupancy rates. Now 22% and projected to rise to 32%. How sad. The increasing cost of living for our youth. What a terrible legacy to leave them with. The fact that our nation will become dull as it ages and personal feedoms diminished.

It seems those who do not really understand demography are the most scared. Weird...

demografix you may or may not have an understanding of demographic trends, but you clearly have little understanding of ecology and resource limits. Or at least you just choose to ignore them.

That is a whole different level of complexity that overlays demographic trends.

The course that human demographics might chart in a world of limitless oil energy WILL be very diferent to the demographics will chart in a world of constrained energy and food production etc.

It is population growth and increased competition for limited resources that reduces personal freedom demografix, not reduced population.

Reduced population means lkess competition and therefore more personal freedom.

For example 200 people per square kilometer means that collection of firewood from the bush must be tightly regulated lest all the trees be stripped from the land in a short space of time.

1 person per square kilometer means that that person can collect firewood to their heart's content with minimal impact on bushland.

You can peddle your booster nonsense about large population increasing personal choice and freedom, but the 70% of Australians (who are obviously capable of critical thinking) realise that, beyond a certain sweet spot, population growth reduces their freedom and increases their cost of living.

Boylesy
Did I say I was for population growth at all costs? I must have missed that statement.
Have you heard of Thorium?
I do have a very good unstanding of ecology. I started that jourtney after reading Sir Edumnd Hilarys Book, Ecology 2000, in 1984.
I do not accept that you know what 70% of Australian think. That is bs.

What I have stated are just the facts. It is not over-population that is the real issue, it is over-consumption. Those that talk about decreasing the fertility rate have no idea and those that talk about unlimited growth, also have no idea.

I certinaly did not say that an increasing population limits personal choice. What I said that as a nation ages, it becomes dull, conservative and personal freedoms are restricted. I certainly did not see any "Keep off the gass" signs in the sixties and why do you think we now have six foot privacy fences as the norm?

Demographics may not be completely destiny, but they do map our future in terms of how many people will be around in the future. That is the point you seem to miss.

"You want to destroy global capitalism"
I will make you feel a whole lot better Cheryl dear.

Yes I would like to see global capaitalism destroyed......at least in its current form that looks more like a plotocracy than democracy to me.

"while creating a society of scientists who are forbidden independent research and free speech. You're for contraception but not the technology to develop it."
Not forbidden to conduct independant pure scientific research Cheryl dear. Merely constrained in their development and implementation of applied technology much as medical practitioners are constrained in how they practice medicine.

What's the matter Cheryl?

Are you afraid of scientists gaining any form of real political power?

Are you afraid of scientists being on a position to put the brakes on big business and governments?

"You don't believe Australia can feed itself even though we EXPORT $46 billion of food every year and import $6 billion through reciprocal trade agreements."

I suggest you review the import/export figures Cheryl.

Australia is a net exporter of grains at present, but we are a net importer of fresh produce and processed foods.

Our status as a net exporter of grains will however be questionable if and when our population reaches 30 million or so.

"You're against foreign aid because the food makes people breed more."
I am against food aid being provided in the absence of comprehensive provision of contraception and family planning in order to compensate for the increase in infant survival rate.

"Anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of 'thought crime'."
Any one who disagrees with this is nothing more than a poorly science educated cretin!

"For the Sustainable People Lobby and their agents, humans are just like rabbits - without any form of determinism or agency."

Sadly Cheryl, collectively, we are just like rabbits and we will collectively suffer the same inevitable fate of an exploding rabbit population if people like you do not become adequately science educated and see the light!

Dempografix,

Please take a look at the latest atlas from the Global Footprint Network (GNP). They are an international thinktank that has actually done the math on resources and consumption on the basis of government and UN statistics, as well as other sources. They convert the results to environmental footprints that express the average consumption and production in terms of notional hectares of land, so that comparisons can be made.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010

If you look at consumption footprints in the tables starting on p. 28, you can see that the US is responsible for about 15% of consumption and the top billion people in the richest countries are collectively responsible for about 38%, so you are simply wrong that consumption is the main problem. Most consumption is in poor countries, just because of the sheer numbers.

The graph on p. 21 plots environmental footprint against rank on the UN Human Development Index. The only country providing high human development without using more than "its share" of global resources is Cuba. In general, giving everyone a modest Western European standard of living with some democratic freedom would currently require the resources of three Earths.

GNP also say that we are globally in about 40% environmental overshoot, essentially because we are using up renewable resources faster than they can be replenished. Think of the aquifers being pumped dry under the North India wheat belt. Considering overshoot, we could probably sustainably give 1-2 billion people decent living standards.

We actually have 7 billion people going on 10 billion (from the latest UN medium projection), with the projected increase largely due to demographic momentum, not just Africans having lots of babies. India's population could nearly double before it stabilises, even if the fertility rate drops to replacement level tomorrow and stays there. Their government estimates that 42% of the children are malnourished now and 59% stunted due to past malnutrition. See

http://www.smh.com.au/world/india-hungers-for-rupees-while-its-children-go-without-food-20120316-1vamm.html