<< King's article is a first class demolition job on those who favour cutting the population >>

Haaahahaha! Gentle Giant, it is very much the other way around, surely.

It's a first-class demolition job on the pro-growth lobby!

I get the very strong impression that King is actually on the side of the population stabilisation lobby and is putting up absurd articles and comments on OLO pretending to be on the other side in order to embarrass the pro-growth lobby and make them seem completely loopy!

He is actually helping the cause of SPGN and SPA quite a lot by doing this.

Just one thing doesn’t add up though: he puts up articles on other subjects on OLO and apparently wants to be taken seriously there!

Maybe Ludwig is right, and this whole article is a classic mis-direct?

I can't see how the article could really be taken seriously, it is just so full of misinformation, like the graph on page 2 of the article, which is actually a projection of population to 2095 - and did others notice the slight upward blip at 2010-2015? Curious, that's about now!

And, what might be the undisclosed causation for the projected population decline? Couldn't possibly be that it finally hit the fan, or sunk in? War, global famine, oil and fertilizer depletion (no, can't be that with all the human excrement 'mobilized'), or an extended global epidemic (with the development of general resistance to all vaccines, antibiotics and antivirals)? Or, massive pollution from mass industrial expansion - or even Global Warming and Climate Change? (Surely not radiation poisoning?) Shades of 'Soylent Green'?

No, of course not, as the article indicates - the projected population reduction is simply because of better education and family planning. Right? (And everyone living in clover all the wee while.)

Rhian, we in Aus may not yet be overpopulated, but at 7 billion the world is looking more than a little stressed, and, as with the Carbon Tax, if we don't lead the way to a better world how can we expect anyone else to follow? Or, as Cheryl seems to suggest, should we just go ahead and populate to our supposed 60 million capacity - based on our current (not no-holds-barred or projected) food production capability - and just let the rest of the world struggle along as best it can?

The three 'R's, do the Right thing, have Respect for all life, and take Responsibility for all you do. Who mentioned Carrying Capacity?
Can we yet teach the rabbits a thing or two? (Or, they teach us?)

>>We have the lowest density of any continent on the planet.<<

No we don't. Antarctica is about twice the size of Australia and only contains a fraction of the population especially during winter. Problem solved: ship all the excess people in the world down south and the overpopulation problem will disappear as if by magic.

Some naysayers might argue that Antarctica is largely uninhabitable because it is mostly desert. And they'd be right. But that applies to Australia too and uninhabitability doesn't stop pro-growers from wanting to cram thrice as many people as we already have into our narrow coastal fringes.

We'll just all have to budge up a bit. And learn to drink less water. And eat less food. And not have much in the way of space or natural environment. Small price to pay for an increase in GDP when you think about it. Because the warm fuzzy you get from seeing a large GDP trumps all other concerns like personal happiness and wellbeing. Or maybe not. Maybe some people get their warm fuzzies from things other than economic indicators.

>>These eco-facists support Agenda 21.<<

Too right Arjay. And not just that: an eco-fascist was the second gunman on the grassy knoll. And an eco-fascist wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It was the eco-fascists who faked the moon landing. And the WTC attack - Saudi Arabian Moslems copped the blame but it was the eco-fascists who packed the twin towers with explosives then faked the hijacking of four planes then flew two military jets packed with high explosives into the WTC before blowing up the Pentagon with a Cruise missile. To this day eco-fascists are still poisoning our water supply with fluoride which they claim strengthens our teeth. They're wily buggers those eco-fascists.

Cheers,

Tony

Salpetre

The author did not make those population numbers up – they are from the United Nations, the most authoritative source of population projections globally. And they are consistent with most demographers’ expectations of global population change. The cause is the decline in birth rates already evident around the world. These lower birth rates take time to filter though to population stabilisation, as a significant proportion of the population is of child-bearing age. But they will.

We don’t need overbearing governments or natural catastrophes to slow population growth. It’s happening anyway, through billions of individual choices.

Not does the author “seem” to suggest we’re heading for 60 million – he points out that Australia’s population growth is slowing anyway, just like global population growth.

That’s what is so offensive to those who think the way to save the world is to dictate how other people behave in the bedroom.

If is a false dichotomy to say we must either support population control or “big Australia”, however defined. I don’t support population control or manipulation because I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t care whether Australia’s population in 2099 is 25, 30, 40, 50 or 60 million, because these and all other likely numbers can easily be accommodated

*That’s what is so offensive to those who think the way to save the world is to dictate how other people behave in the bedroom*

The only ones wanting to dictate how other people behave in the
bedroom, are the Catholic Church. The rest of us support family
planning. The Catholics want to force ever more kids on anyone
who does not cross their legs for Jesus.

Rhian,

>>I don’t care whether Australia’s population in 2099 is 25, 30, 40, 50 or 60 million, because these and all other likely numbers can easily be accommodated<<

I can't believe you're serious - "can easily be accommodated"?? In whose judgement, and in what conditions? (You may not care, but I and I'm reasonably sure a great many other Aussies certainly do!)

I'm not espousing 'breeding control' in Aus (my quip re 'leading the way', as per our insane Carbon Tax, was very much tongue-in-cheek); but, I have a very real concern about total world population - as it is now, and without any further increase - there is already enough strife and conflict now, as people in so many parts (outside Oz) fight for control and exploitation of resources (including using slavery, child slavery, torture, rape and child soldiers). Somehow, dog-eat-dog has to stop! (Or, be stopped.) And, while so many starve or rely totally on foreign aid. A very vicious cycle is in play, and it will not easily be corrected - and increased population is the last thing anyone needs.

Now that Iraq has been 'liberated', is all hunky-dory? (ie, all luvvy-duvvy?) Or in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya? Or in Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Ireland, UK, US, Myanmar, Argentina, Sri Lanka, West Papua, Congo, Sudan, Tibet, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Yemen, or Sth Africa .....? And, Syria and Afghanistan?? (And even Pakistan?) Oz stands out, does it not, in our freedom, security, relative affluence and lack of civil strife?

And, is life just great for all the people in China and India?

What then? More boats? More immigration? Bring all the problems to Aus? Realistically, that would solve nothing, except to make Aus a total basket case.

Arjay argues against a 'world order', but surely some form of sanity must prevail, and we, and all free and responsible nations, need to try to be part of a solution - a world solution - and that means introducing our sort of freedoms to all the world's trouble spots.