>>and a very long way indeed on the "how".<<

I hear that wearing a little rubber thingy on the end of your cock can prove quite effective.

Cheers,

Tony

Now let’s see Cheryl, how many things did you get totally wrong in your last post?

1. Anti-pops.

2. << You have been one of the most strident members of the anti-pops, asserting that over-population has caused everything from genital herpes.. >>

Erm. No I haven’t asserted any such thing. That’s one hard and fast assertion about me that you’ve invented out of thin air.

3. << I wonder though if your stridency of only selecting people (and especially people who eat and live in a capitalist societies)… >>

I have repeatedly quoted Paul Ehrlich’s famous equation; I = PAT, which immediately demonstrates that it is not only people or population growth that needs to be addressed. But it is the factor that so often gets left out. You know that. So that’s your second deliberately false assertion.

But hey that’s your style isn’t it Cheryl. You don’t just jump to the end of the spectrum in your responses, you deliberately INVENT STUFF… which really does amount to defamation.

Wow. Any subintelligent goose can do that. But it takes a bit of nous to be able to acknowledge a person’s true position and then debate them on that basis. Nous you don’t have, so it seems.

Your style is very strange, given that your alter-ego, Malcolm King is an article writer on OLO and apparently wants to be taken seriously on various other subjects.

Hey BTW, that was a hooter of statement you made in your previous post:

<< I'm all for sustainability. >>

Mmmmwaa hahahahaaaaa!

Wow, I can certainly see why this snippet of an article has raised the hackles of posters here, it's the perfect example of what, by analogy, in literary jargon used to be called New Criticism, or formalism, translated to the real world. That is, the author of the article completely ignores the context of an increasingly desperate planet, focusing on the text (the issue) in isolation, or as if the planet was infinite.
I just love the culmination of the first paragraph of the article—“simultaneously promoting economic development, environmental protection, and social welfare”.
I've heard of optimism but this is ridiculous! s/he even uses the "win win solution" slogan to help this gargantuan turd pass--it's worthy of Matt Ridley! As if s/he's actually said anything, or solved something, beyond mixing-up a dirty great magic pudding!
S/he's got to be an economist; either an undergraduate or a 30-year maestro (there's no qualitative difference).
In one respect though s/he's quite right; s/he takes the context for granted, capitalism, and as "I'm" tired of saying, it can only grow, folks. It doesn't do contraction.
You cannot have modern capitalism (based on a bourgeoisie) without economic/material growth; at best it must devolve into feudalism, or in modern parlance, the rule of corporations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Corporations_Rule_the_World
I wonder which one Shenggen Fan works for, or is aiming for...

"Promote innovations in biological sciences, food technologies and natural resource use that prioritize the needs of smallholders in developing countries.'

But innovations in biological sciences and food technologies "don't" prioritise the needs of smallholders in developing countries......mostly they prioritise the profits of multi-national mega-corporations in the Western world - often at the expense of smallholders in developing countries, who are driven into debt while their land is degraded, their water tables are polluted and depleted and their ancient knowledge of biodiversity is lost.

Here's an oldie, but a goody, from Vandana Shiva - "Poverty and Globalisation".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm

Everything ain't equal. My heart really bleeds for poor old China with its 8-10% GDP growth maybe having to turn around and support some of the olds arising from its one child policy. (Or, do you think they might do another Mao Grand Experiment and just let the olds starve and die 'for the greater good'.)
One way or another, China's population may continue to decline to genuinely 'sustainable' levels - but maybe not so its industrial development. (Or, are those two possibilities mutually exclusive anyway.)

In Oz of course, with our 3% growth, we have no compunctions about supporting our older citizens - it's just with finding jobs for the young that we seem to have a problem.

There's growth, and there's growth. It seems to me that for any population to be truly sustainable, one has to draw a line - numbers vs quality of life. If one adds the maintenance of forests, rivers, oceans and biodiversity into the 'quality' component, we have some very serious concerns ahead of us.

"Open" Trade I can see becoming totally controlled and restricted trade (maybe the world can do with less Madagascar sisal, so that the lemurs could have a bit more habitat). Sustainable produce means a closed equation - with an end to degradation, exploitation, pollution and forest/habitat destruction, the rationing of fertiliser resources, and an end to wishful thinking about GM being able to overcome all obstacles to exponential growth.

Immigration not a problem? Try Malaysia, Italy, Germany, etc, with its rise of Supremacist or ethnic cleansing movements (and football "heroes"), try Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Bahrain, Sri Lanka, .. Try the European financial crisis generally.
So, we could take a few more refugees in Oz, and that will achieve, what exactly?

An absurd jumble of self-contradictory statements.

Production is not made more efficient by putting it in the hands of central planning bureaucrats, you fool, especially not those who think that humans are a plague of pests.

A so-called green economy just means that everything people want more of will be made more expensive so as to provides taxes to pay for things that people want less of. That's why they need "policy" (= control based on threats of force) to make it happen; otherwise there'd be no need for government to anything, would there?

"Sustainable" is just the new meangingless catchphrase meaning communist. The government will tell everyone else to do. It's a garbled mixture of the Christian concept of paradise (all economic problems of scarcity permanently banished in a morally superior wonder-state), and communism (government will rationalise scarcity better than the market ever could.

But the even more stupid part of the article is the idea that, by restricting food production or giving more control of it into the hands of government, we're going to provide greater food security! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The socialists showed what happens last time they took over food production - millions of people died of starvation. How can central planning be in any better position this time around.

Those who approve the article are merely displaying their economic ignorance, moral conceitedness and stupidity to the point of dangerousness.