Pericles,

As you note, it's difficult for us fortunate Westerners to deny an aspiration to prosperity to those in the third world - but with an improvement in individual prosperity there's comes more than just a lowering of the birth rate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/30/food.china1

Now, what's all this about, Ludwig.

>>What happened to you on the ‘World food day’ thread Pericles? You know when you’ve been thoroughly trounced eh?<<

Let's see now.

>>Neither of the links you posted have got anything directly to do with population and only a pretty vague overall connection.<<

You were supposed to read them in the context of the article. As in "the baseless and unscientific attack on enriched food by Greenpeace, which culminated in the criminal destruction of a CSIRO trial wheat crop in 2011."

The idea was to draw your attention to the clear link between the Luddite tactics of Greenpeace in preventing research into more efficient methods of food production, and the impact this would have on people who desperately need more efficient methods of food production, i.e. the world's starving people.

Quite how you missed this obvious connection is beyond me.

What else.

>>So you reckon we should just charge forth with GM research and completely disregard all the concerns raised by Greenpeace.<<

No. But I do object to vandalism. Do you support it? Because that's what the article is about. Vandalism. Luddism. Preventing research into more efficient methods of food production, that the world's starving desperately need.

Did I mention that before? Oh well, it is worth repeating.

>>You can see a connection between GM and population! Wonderful. But…. hold on…..if I was to dare to mention population on a thread about GM, you’d be right up me for it!!<<

Doh!

Mentioning the impact on a starving population of preventing research into improved methods of food production, is not the same as diverting the discussion onto "population control", which, I have noticed, you do with monotonous regularity.

Did I mention that before? Oh well, it is worth repeating.

>>Again, the main problem with Greenpeace’s position on this is that it is not tied to population stabilisation.<<

No, the main problem is that it is a vicious, shortsighted and ultimately pointless strategy that actually kills people. "Population stabilization" is the ultimate pipedream of the ultimate authoritarian, and has no place in twentyfirst century policy models.

*"Population stabilization" is the ultimate pipedream of the ultimate authoritarian, and has no place in twentyfirst century policy models.*

Sheesh, so Darwin has been proven correct once again. Species including humans, will simply keep breeding like rabbits until they
run out of resources and then the whole thing will fall over.
The hope that human intelligence might make a difference to this,
is but a pipedream. Our species is simply too stupid. So be it.

C'mon Yabby, you know better than that.

>>The hope that human intelligence might make a difference to this, is but a pipedream<<

Human intelligence will of course make a difference. The context here is "enforced population stabilization", of the kind that Ludwig is in favour of, where governments are given the power to decide who gets born and who doesn't.

Mind you, there's a lot of truth in the Darwinian process that you - somewhat imperfectly - describe.

>>Species including humans, will simply keep breeding like rabbits until they run out of resources and then the whole thing will fall over.<<

Most species ensure their own survival by ceasing to overpopulate before they run out of resources. Humans will do the same, of that I have no doubt.

The question that tends to get batted around here is whether that point has been reached. I say that it has not, but that I fully expect the earth's population to stabilize - reach an equilibrium - at some point in the future. What I am totally against is the concept that the Ludwigs of this world should arbitrarily make that calculation, for their own selfish reasons, and then proceed to impose their will upon the rest of the world, nolens volens.

It will be interesting to see whether the richer countries, feeling an ever greater pinch from the GFC, will start to tone down their charitable instincts, and become less inclined to pay to the third world countries their conscience money. This might have the beneficial effect of concentrating their attention on creating within the recipient countries independence from charity, rather than encourage a culture of dependence.

Which is where using our more advanced technology to help them grow food comes into the equation. And where Greenpeace's attempts to prevent this from occurring are particularly egregious.

*The context here is "enforced population stabilization", of the kind that Ludwig is in favour of*

Well hang on Pericles, for a start Ludwig agrees with me, that women
in the third world, who are too poor to afford family planning, should
be given a choice. That is hardly enforcement. I'm not sure if you
read the Guttmacher Institute report, but even the Economist of
12th July 2008 agrees that some women in sub Saharan Africa are
missing out. While you are feeding 6 kids, its hard to get ahead
economically and say start a micro business.

But let me ask you a philosophical question. What about other species?
Are you going to leave a bit of space for them too, or just wall to
wall humans? What kind of planet do you want your great grandkids to
see? For all we are doing is decimating any species that is in our
way, for ever more humans. I personally think that it's a terrible
shame and will be our own undoing in the end.

Without biodiversity, you won't have a humanity, nature will make
sure of that, as we've seen time and time again.But we humans
seemingly need pain to learn and will learn the hard way. Poor
judgement is a human foible after all.

Of course they should, Yabby.

>>Well hang on Pericles, for a start Ludwig agrees with me, that women in the third world, who are too poor to afford family planning, should be given a choice.<<

But we don't need such assistance in Australia, do we. And it was that flavour of government intervention/authoritarianism that I was alluding to. The kind that Ludwig is desperately in favour of, with government meddling in every aspect of our personal lives. Including our sex lives, apparently. And where we should live. The assumption - often made by those steeped in public service myopia - that governments somehow miraculously know better than the people.

>>While you are feeding 6 kids, its hard to get ahead economically and say start a micro business.<<

No question. And I wouldn't be in their shoes - or lack of them - for quids. But if you are able to make a decision between a) continuing to feed them as best you can by shipping stuff to them from everywhere in the world, or b) helping them make a start to becoming self-sufficient, the choice (I would hope) is obvious. Hence my disgust at the self-serving, holier-than-thou antics of Greenpeace, and its drive to prevent this from even being an option.

>>But let me ask you a philosophical question. What about other species? Are you going to leave a bit of space for them too, or just wall to wall humans? What kind of planet do you want your great grandkids to see? For all we are doing is decimating any species that is in our way, for ever more humans. I personally think that it's a terrible shame and will be our own undoing in the end. Without biodiversity, you won't have a humanity<<

I fail to see the point of the question. Of course we need "biodiversity".

But are you actually suggesting that Greenpeace's efforts to suppress the advances in food technology are necessary to promote biodiversity? Or that opposing their activities will ultimately wipe out the human race?

Seriously?