Boyzone and cave clan,

You guys are so 2010. My little fact alert stung didn't it re the pop growth in decline across most of Europe and Russia? It makes a mockery of your claims in one fell swoop.

Now you're throwing two year old Fairfax polls at me which say that untutored outback Queenslanders don't want more people. Hard to reckon with people who have one person per 10,000 acres saying they don't want more people.

You guys are instrumentalists. You don't give a fat rats for democracy. You have no idea how to implement any of your bizarre Dr Strangelove fantasies.

You'd do anything to cull the number of people down to the magic Kanck figure of one per family. Maybe get some outback Queensland roo shooters?

The reason why you're so cranky is that your precious issue has slipped off the news agenda. That's why Michael-in-Adelaide and Coulter decided to crank out some more crank.

On the contrary, Dempografix

What matters in resource and environment issues is total impact, not fair shares or per capita impact. You seem to have the attitude that we should take all the resources, including the capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes, and divide them equally among all the people. Anything else is unfair. If you want a bigger share for your family or your group, that is easy. Just have more babies. If it makes everyone poor, strips the environment bare, or puts people in danger of a collapse, that is just too bad. The aspiration to have a large family trumps everything else.

Why not divide by share of biocapacity, rather than people? Then people in the individual countries could make up their own minds about the balance between numbers and quality of life. If a country is living within its biocapacity, why should it owe a living to other countries, whose people, after all, were not forced to procreate at gunpoint? Even so, I am no apologist for wasteful consumption and recognise that it is certainly part of the problem. Even without the issue of responsibility to the world's poor, eliminating senseless waste is still a worthwhile goal, because it uses up resources and puts unnecessary pressure on the environment.

Hi to all the school kids who read these posts to pirate for school essays.

Now lets have a recap of what we have gone through here:

Population growth is falling in Europe but it's rising in Africa.
The anti-pops/Sustainable People Lobby want to cut funding to Africa because our food aid creates babies.

The anti-pops don't believe population growth will steady and then start falling over the next 50 years. They believe in case A - the worst case scenario. That means we're all doomed.

They are against capitalism and technology, which means we need to invent a car made out of mung beans. This will be your job kids.

But kids, we're all doomed anyway because sooner or later we're going to run out of oil, food, minerals, etc. And don't forget the Mayan Prophesy which still has seven months left to happen.

Remember children, the anti-people lobby are big on cutting the population in Australia. The population of Australia is currently about the same as New York City - 23 million.

The hydra-like head of the anti-pops in Australia is Sandra Kanck and John Coulter - they supported the GST which killed the Democrats.

The anti-pops are instrumentalists. That means they believe they can measure how much energy a baby will consume over its life time and accordingly, tell the mother how many kids she can have per square foot of energy/land. I can tell you she will be allowed to have between zero and one. That's Kanck's Law.

Who is going to enforce that kids and how? Also do you think that method is valid and scientific as it involves averaging the averages to come up with a number - say 5.

But kids, you can't take for granted that you will be allowed to have kids - not if this pack of wallies get their way. Why? Because humans are evil food eating rabbits. Kids, please don't start your essay off with that last sentence.

"You guys are so 2010"

That suggests to me you are under the age of 30.

A little young and naive perhaps?

So according to you and demografix the 2010 poll is totally irrelevant and in 2 years there is been seismic shift in the attitudes of that 70% of Australians towards 'big Australia'.

Yeah right! In your and demografix wildest dreams.

As for the rest of your posts Cheryl, you are getting rather hysterical aren't you love?

As for old farts and red neck rural QLDers Cheryl........in a democracy the majority rules.

And it is clear from your hysterical posts you KNOW you aint on the majority side!

Boylesy
What part of "I do not support population growth" do you not understand?

Demografix you are happy to allow the global population to follow its natural course and peak at what ever when ever, regardless of any undesirable consequences.

That effectively means you support population growth, no matter how you 'spin' your position on this forum.

From my perspective you are an enemy as equally dangerous as those who can see no limit to the human population.