cohenite,

Before your write people off as dopes and weirdos, perhaps you should assess your own foibles. In principle it's fine to wish everyone in the world the sort of luxurious lifestyle of the West via a capitalist system, but in reality it would take several more earths to achieve such ends universally under any system.

Curmudgeon,

India and China have huge problems accompanying their thrust into the global growth game - the environment being number one. If you believe that either country's present efforts are sustainable in the long run, then you're living in fairy land IMO

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/

Outrider
We should distinguish between GDP and GDP per capita. The Stable Population Party has recently pointed out that GDP per capita has hardly grown over the period of the ALP government. We have all the inconvenience of infrastructure trying to cope with increased population, mainly due to high immigration, with no benefits, while our environment is further degraded. No wonder people are baffled when they don't feel better off despite what the the commentators are telling them.
All parties are in favour of high immigration, You can voice your opinion by writing "Reduce Immigration' across the top of your ballot paper.It will be valid if you do not obscure numbers.

Yep, spot on Outrider.

<< All parties are in favour of high immigration >>

Yes, including the silly Greens, for goodness sake!

I'm not sure I need to add anything, but let me just say that I went back to the 1973 Treasury paper, and summarised it. Yes, by and large I agree with its message. Yes, not everyone will cheer about how much better off they are than their parents were. Benefits are relatively widely shared in Australia, less so in the USA. And the paper did make the point that growth is not a good or a goal in itself: it ought to be the outcome of possibilities and policies that improve general wellbeing.

Don Aitken is correct in his assertions despite the fact that a positive assessment of the state of the world is seen as as some form of treachery these days.

The Club OF Rome resurrected a discredited Malthusian philosophy.

The following is true

1. There is more food available for people than ever before. Food has even been dumped in the past because of excesses.
2. Malthus was mathematically wrong because he made certain mathematical assumptions which cannot be substantiated in relation to population growth and food availability.
3. The Club of Rome was and still is primarily a grouping of the wealthy and influential individuals who seek to further their personal aims and have done so through the UN. Many of the members are ex Oil and Coal company bosses and former politicians. The Rothschilds were and still are intimately involved in the Club of Rome. Global Warming originated with them.
4. Every person in the world could fit into an area the size of Texas with a 20 metre x 20 metre block of land for each 4 person family. Check out the maths!
5. Doomsayers such as Ehrlich have been comprehensively wrong yet he commands respect amongst those who seek disaster scenarios. Including politicians like our own Bob Carr (who is a director of a Carbon Trading company).

Atman,

Re: point 4.....just because you can stuff a certain amount of humanity into a given area doesn't mean they can sustainably support themselves - especially employing methods dependent on fossil fuels - (the soil becomes devoid of life - the groundwater is depleted, polluted...etc,etc)

Never mind the maths - we're dealing with humans here.

Check out the reality.