I have some sympathy for you Ludwig.

You have been one of the most strident members of the anti-pops, asserting that over-population has caused everything from genital herpes, rising sea levels, famine, pestilence and every nasty found in the Book of Revelation. You are dedicated.

I wonder though if your stridency of only selecting people (and especially people who eat and live in a capitalist societies) as being the sum cause of all agents of evil change, isn't driving potential advocates away from your door?

Would not a wiser policy be to admit a raft of social, economic, historial and political influences are also at play rather than to simply blame it all on people?

Atman,

>>..people are generally healthier and better fed then there were when had 1 billion.<< ?

How'd you like to live in Soweto, or Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, the Congo or any one of the rubbish tip resort establishments or manual mining facilities scattered throughout South America, India or Africa? Etc ... World Freedom from Hunger Campaign ring any bells, or Medicin sans Frontiers, Care International and the Red Cross? Etc... Malaria, dysentery, tuberculosis, Aids, etc?

All hunkydory living comfortably in Oz with the blinkers firmly affixed.

So, we're all right Jack, and that's all that counts? Yeh, right.

Saltpetre

Surely the question is, which policies are most likely to deliver improvements in living standards in countries like those you mention?

Atman is right. Living standards for most people around the world are better than at any time in history, by any objective measure. Life expectancy is longer, infant mortality is lower, literacy is higher, nutrition is better, and access to clean drinking water is more prevalent. This is not only true in rich countries like Australia, but also in poor ones, on average.

Therefore, Ludwig’s argument that the solution to poverty is to cut population is not compatible with the evidence.

This is not, of course, to say that we have nothing to worry about. There are far too many poor and hungry people in the world, and probably many things that we could and should do to address those problems. The question is, what?

If we take a standard green position that western industrialisation and population growth are the causes of poverty in developing countries, it will lead us to one set of policy prescriptions.

If we take a standard economic perspective, that industrialisation has raised living standards in both developed and developing countries, that trade is good for the poor and technologies such as the green revolution and golden rice can contribute to human welfare, then it will lead to virtually the opposite set of policy prescriptions.

I believe both sides of the argument are sincere in their desire to raise living standards in developing countries, but they differ radically in their interpretations of its causes and therefore the best measures to address it. Which narrative best fits the facts is therefore a vitally important question. In my view, the economic one does.

Folks. The continuing submissions on population control both here and in innumerable publications is ok but, where are the realistic/practical/workable suggestions as to what to do about it?

Perhaps the Chinese solution? Will never happen in a democracy.

The Chinese government is currently facing a Gordian knot problem with an 'unintended
Consequence'.

Those couples now ageing, with only one child to provide for them, are looking for help to survive from a government without an 'old age' infrastructure, retirement villages, pension system etc etc etc.

Atman, a ripost worthy of an Olympic fencer. Indeed, most of us are indeed healthier and better fed now than when the planet had 1 billion. Think you may be onto something there.

Cheryl, I fear you have indeed identified the new and latest 'catch all' for any action we may need to justify! I fear that a google word count on the use of this multi defining word will skyrocket post Rion +20 conference.

*Therefore, Ludwig’s argument that the solution to poverty is to cut population is not compatible with the evidence.*

Well you could try it, Rhian. Throw away that pesky family planning
and have another baby every time you feel like sex. Then tell me
if its easier feeding, clothing and educating two or ten.

You would possibly have had more credibility, Ludwig, if you had picked just one example from the "many".

>>I have many times expressed the things that need to be done in order to address population growth and sustainability, and who should be doing them<<

Being specific about something - or at least attempting to be specific - often has the effect of providing some clarity to the issue. One specific is the situation in China. Here's an excerpt from a recent article in The Economist.

"In the traditional Chinese family, children, especially sons, look after their parents... But rapid ageing also means China faces what is called the “4-2-1 phenomenon”: each only child is responsible for two parents and four grandparents. Even with high savings rates, it seems unlikely that the younger generation will be able or willing to afford such a burden. So most elderly Chinese will be obliged to rely heavily on social-security pensions."

http://www.economist.com/node/21553056

Another specific is the situation in many parts of Africa. Each year, the increase in the population of Africa exceeds the total population of Australia. Indeed, one fairly reliable estimate has the continent housing nearly 22% of the world's population in 2050, up from around 15% today.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/06/africa-faces-explosive-population-growth/

To me, that indicates that in order to make any significant progress, the Ludwig Solution should not concern itself quite so much with Australian immigration.

>>I have often thought that in most of your posts you are good at having a fine old critique but poor in offering alternatives<<

But at least I don't pretend to have an answer, unlike some people.

I hope you don't mind if I quote you, from an earlier post.

"The most important thing can be done with the stroke of a pen, without any new laws being introduced – simply reduce immigration to about net zero."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13492#233703

Yeah, that should do it.