We appear to have entered the Twilight Zone on this thread, with one amongst us who appears to have a very different view of what it means to be human in the greater context - I can only presume an Alien Predator intent on the downfall of human civilisation and the rise of the Planet of the "Apes".

<< Sadly, due to the nature of the problem itself - in that it involves human beings, and not merely numbers on a spreadsheet - none of those well-meaning fancies would have the remotest chance of success. >>

Oh what a dismal outlook you have Pericles! One has got to wonder why you spend so much time involving yourself with all this stuff on OLO if you think the situation is hopeless.

I agree that the big stumbling block is the human psyche. The answers to all our woes are out there. It is just a matter of getting them implemented. Where there is a will, there is a way. But there isn’t the will at present. So that is the big challenge.

<< The stroke of a pen? That's pretty impressive. >>

I’m sure you know what I mean here: A big reduction in immigration in Australia would be a very easy thing to do compared to most other things that we need to do to achieve a sustainable society.

And it would be political tenable too, as most people are opposed to high immigration.

<< What would be the words on the piece of paper that is being signed, do you think? >>

I envisage that the policy under a Carr Labor government would read something like:

<< We will reduce immigration by 40 000 per year until it reaches a level that is equal to the total emigration of the previous year and then adjust it annually to equal the previous year’s emigration, hence making it net zero overall. >>

Signed: Robert John Carr

What is "hopeless", Ludwig, is the concept that any form of government intervention can solve your problem.

>>One has got to wonder why you spend so much time involving yourself with all this stuff on OLO if you think the situation is hopeless.<<

I say "your" problem, because I believe it exists only in your mind. The weight of evidence is that the world has become more congenial and supportive of human lives than at any stage in its history. Easily demonstrated, incidentally, by the fact that the world's population continues to increase. If you have evidence to contradict this, please, let us in on it.

Along these lines, here's another train of thought for you to consider.

The most effective means to reduce third-world population - and, according to your theory, increase their overall prosperity - is to terminate all forms of overseas aid to those countries. No money, no food parcels, no medicines. The population would eventually settle to a point of self-sustainability, governed entirely by the laws of self-generated supply and demand.

"Our" problem, in this context, is that we produce too much. We have a surplus of all three commodities, which we happily export to these communities, thoughtlessly prolonging their miserable existence, and perpetuating the cycle of over-populating countries unable to survive on their own.

Is this fair? Is it humane?

Is it fair that some people are born in Ethiopia, and some in Turramurra?

Is it humane, to continue to provide the means whereby so many people are kept alive, at a subsistence level that would be totally intolerable to someone born in Turramurra, simply so that Western charities can say "we have saved x million lives this year"?

It is entirely legitimate to describe our feeble efforts to help these people as being utterly inhumane. And to recognize that we are simply reacting to our own personal guilt at being well-fed and cared-for.

I'd appreciate your observations on this line of enquiry.

Pericles, further to your previous post:

<< To impose any "solution" is in direct violation of this, and simply a matter of nanny-knows-best. >>

This is the critical flaw with your line of thinking. You are branding my solutions or suggested policies as impositions.

Not true. As I said I agree with you that the will needs to be there for things to succeed. So it is a matter of governments leading the way in getting the message out there that we need to change, especially regarding population growth.

As far as a big reduction in immigration goes in Australia and the desire for a stable population not too much higher than the current level, both the scientific fraternity and the general populace are predominantly supportive. It is the terrible in-bed relationship between government and vested-interest big business that is the main stumbling block.

And also in the third world, it shouldn’t be too difficult to convince people that having fewer kids is a very good idea, if the right support mechanisms are in place. With good government guidance, good education and the right sort of aid, sustainability-oriented policies could be implemented all over the place…with the will of the people behind them.

<< Creating "Fortress Australia", and repelling all boarders… >>

Come on Pericles, you know that net zero immigration does amount to a ‘fortress Australia’ mentality. We’d still have quite a sizeable immigration program, big enough to double our refugee intake and also allow for essential skills.

<< …would be interpreted as an act of belligerence, and would have many economic and social repercussions >>

It would most probably be interpreted as an act of common sense, especially if it was seen to be a fundamental part of a sustainability strategy. So I can’t see any significant economic or social repercussions.

What ones can you see that could be spurred by the introduction of a net zero immigration program?

*thoughtlessly prolonging their miserable existence, and perpetuating the cycle of over-populating countries unable to survive on their own.*

What we are really doing, Pericles, is lotfeeding humans in the name
of our religion. Our missionaries flooded places like Africa with
vaccines, boatloads of food etc and then told them "if you dare to
have sex, you will have another child". The third world does not
have the family planning choices and abortion facilities which we
have, the Vatican does its utmost to deny it to them. They don't have
their people stationed at the UN, for no reason.

How far these tentacles spread is evident even in Western Australia,
where the new Midland hospital, bankrolled by the taxpayer, will be
run by the Catholics and if a woman wants her tubes tied, it will
just be tough titties.She will have to find a non Catholic hospital.
At least here she can find one, unlike the third world, where UN
funding is used to run Catholic hospitals, enforcing their dogma,
at our expense.

The UN's thoughts and ideas on food and population and all its
pontifications in Rio plus most of the discussion here is redundant.

How many of you have seen that graph showing population increase since
the start of coal consumption in the 19th century followed shortly by
the consumption of oil. If you have you will have noticed how very
very close the population and oil consumption graphs track.
They might in fact be considered to be the same.
They are exponential curves and we all know what happens with them.
No matter what the UN or anyone else does the population will follow
the energy curve down back towards the one billion mark.
It might lag by a 1/2 generation but it will follow.

About the only possibility of salvation will be if cold fusion comes good.
Other wise female malnutrition will take care of it all.