> nobody is going hungry because Australia is not producing
more food.

How do you know?
How do you know what would have happened to all that food production prevented by the NVA, and all the similar laws like it throughout Australia and the western world, and the shortage of food that it caused in a knock-on effect further down the line into other markets? You don't. I think it's almost certain that people have died of hunger because of them - probably lots. Economic phenomena are inter-related. Only the statists indulge themselves in this fantasy of re-ordering the world at whim with no downsides, like Ludwig.

"Now if you think that capitalism will produce enough food to feed
every child that anyone ever produces...

I'm not saying it will. And I'm not pretending, as all the statists are, to have the solution to the world's problems. What I'm saying is that the idea that the state can make the economy and ecology sustainable, or more sustainable, has no basis in reason or evidence, and the only reason the statists are so confident that it can, is because they
a) don't factor in the value of feeding people because they don't agree with it, like Saltpetre; and
b) don't count the downsides of state actions, like Ludwig, or blame them on "capitalism", like Squeers

> Pretending that you have a band aid to cover the problem and make
it go away, is deeply flawed thinking, IMHO.

I'm not pretending that but the statists are, and worse: they pretend they have a solution to completely solve the problem, when, like everyone else, they are completely unable to provide any rational answer to my splendid argument showing that that belief system is irrational.

>So if I have twelve children, will you feed them all for me?

No. Did I say I would? What's that got to do with the price of eggs? I'm having enough trouble fulfilling my life's mission of inseminating as many women as possible.

*How do you know?*

I know Jardine, because I happen to be involved in the food production
industry and we always have millions of tonnes to spare for sale,
if your cheque book is large enough.

*No. Did I say I would? What's that got to do with the price of eggs?*

It's got everything to do with it. For if people keep popping out
children without worrying about how they will be fed, there will
always be hungry children. Don't blame those of us who say its
unsustainable.

* I'm having enough trouble fulfilling my life's mission of inseminating as many women as possible.*

Well exactly and you arn't the only male with the same goal. Which
makes my point that the answer is not to trash the environment to
feed all those children, but to give women the choice of family
planning. If your inseminations produce hungry children, why should
I feed them for you?

JKJ,

So, you don't have any solution(s) (and you even appear to deny that there is a problem), but you continue to harangue we 'statists' with an insane proposition that government (or 'state') intervention is either not possible or not warranted, or in any event doomed to failure. And your only argument in support of your denialist position is that 'free-will' will inevitably act to undermine any and all national or international policies aimed at preventing population over-run. I think you just hate government intervention of any kind, and paint yourself clearly as a Libertarian extremist.

Viz Your Post:
*>I'm not pretending ... to have the solution to the world's problems. What I'm saying is that the idea that the state can make the economy and ecology sustainable, or more sustainable, has no basis in reason or evidence<*

Gosh, the G20 obviously must be terribly mis-informed.

But, You Say the statists fail because they:
*>a) don't factor in the value of feeding people because they don't agree with it, like Saltpetre; and
b) don't count the downsides of state actions, like Ludwig, or blame them on "capitalism", like Squeers<*

Don't agree with what? Feeding people, or the value of people? My, you have an extraordinary interpretation of other people's posts. Not interested? You must be joking. What a laugh, here we are thinking we're conscientiously addressing a real and present danger to human and planetary sustainability, but you confidently assert we are just 'not interested' or just blowing off hot air.

If you expect us to defer to your masterly approach, dear maestro, you are (unhumbly) mistaken.

<< True >>

Wahoo, Pericles! It is so good when we occasionally find something to agree on! ( :>)

<< But reallocating the money will create the same level of starvation as withholding it, will it not? >>

No of course not. I envisage that we would reallocate aid as best we can without leading to starvation or any significant negative impacts. I’m sure there is plenty of scope to do that. We certainly wouldn’t stop aid on which people depend for their very survival.

You do have a strong tendency to see things in a very black and white or all-or-nothing manner.

<< That's a clear case of simultaneous consumption and retention of baked confectionery, if you ask me. >>

Not at all. Again, you are seeing things in a very polarised manner. It’s a balancing act between government showing initiative and doing what the majority of voters want. It shouldn’t be all of one or the other.

So if the Australian people did vote for a complete cessation to international aid, then I would say it should be the duty of our government to not obey this wish and to allocate at least a little aid money to the global sustainability effort. Don’t forget that aid is not just about helping the desperately poor and grossly unsustainable, it is also about building bridges and maintaining good relations between us and many other countries, which has positive implications for trade and defence.

<< So, a smaller population could have achieved all the gains and efficiencies that a larger one has achieved. How on earth can you guarantee that? It's just pure speculation. >>

Again, it is neither absolute fact nor absolute speculation. It is somewhere in between. Not absolutely undeniable but pretty damn close to it I would think!

Please feel free to build a case against it. I’d be interested in your analysis of why you think it wouldn’t be true.

The reason that I tend to write in such a black-and-white manner, Ludwig, is to provide contrast to the sheer wishy-washy, "wouldn't-it-be-great-if" nature of your suggestions.

On every single topic, you do seem to want your cake, and eat it too.

>>I envisage that we would reallocate aid as best we can without leading to starvation or any significant negative impacts<<

"Reallocating" surely involves sending condoms, and instructions on how to use them, in the place of food and medicine. Do some calculations. How many handfuls of rice can you get for the dollar value of a condom. How many condoms would you need to ship, in order to establish a culture of safe sex practices that prevent unwanted pregnancies. How many people would have died by then, as a result of the displacement of food by condoms, eh.

These are real-life calculations, Ludwig. And real lives, too. You are trying desperately to play God, but without an infinite number of loaves and fishes to help you out.

>>It’s a balancing act between government showing initiative and doing what the majority of voters want. It shouldn’t be all of one or the other.<<

That's even more of a cop-out.

Whatever happened to:

>>Government intervention is essential. But again, it has to be seen to be the right thing by the majority of people<<

As I see it, you want some government intervention, but only that which is approved by the people, except for some of the time, when they should "show initiative" instead.

The problem would be knowing which tenet you are following at any given time: showing initiative, or obeying the will of the people.

No wonder you force me to occupy the hinterlands of absolutism.

>>Please feel free to build a case against [the potential of a smaller population over the past two or three decades]<<

Ok.

GDP per capita has increased steadily over the period. Therefore, the more people, the greater the growth in individual wealth.

Sure, it may not hold true for ever. But that's a different proposition to proactively taking action to reverse our progress.

Ludwig, I've been following your comments for a day or so now re aid and you need aid more than our rabbit breeding neighbours.

"So if the Australian people did vote for a complete cessation to international aid, then I would say it should be the duty of our government to not obey this wish and to allocate at least a little aid money to the global sustainability effort."

That's big of you. The people of Australia elect the Government to make those decisions. Why the hell do you think that concerns the polity?

Have a little read of this: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13640

The anti-pop argument is now the equivalent of drunk dialling.