cohenite,
Grab all those pro population growth & economic growth mutts & send them to Mars. See how they go without us taxpayers. I wonder if boat people would be interested to give their agenda a go on Mars ?

Geoff

“There is no moral level of consumption, I am just acutely aware that my current impact, and that of my family … is globally, negative.”

You’re contradicting yourself. If there’s no moral level of consumption, then how do you know that your current impact is morally negative? And if it’s not morally negative, then what does it morally matter?

“(oh yes so sorry I have had the ability to breed)”

You’re the one arguing that human resource consumption is bad, remember? You should be apologizing to yourself for breeding. You should be apologizing to us for your hypocrisy.

“my scientific EROEI is positive on my side”

Does that include the EROEI for all your offspring and all their activities and any descendants?

“I have never stated "human life is self-evidently bad for the environment"

Your entire argument is nothing but that human life is self-evidently bad for the environment, otherwise there’d be no issue. Why else moan about “this road of denial”? If AGW is not self-evidently bad for the environment, it’s irrelevant, isn’t it? If not, why not, consistent with your statement that there’s no moral level of consumption?

If human life is not bad for the environment, then why get your EROEI down?

“however it is pretty obvious to the ley man or woman in the street we are now having a detrimental impact on ourselves …..”

Hang on. The question is whether we are having a detrimental impact. When I challenge you to prove it, you can’t answer by simply asserting it’s “pretty obvious”. You’re only proving my point – that your belief is circular, and you can’t provide a rational defence of any anti-populationist or AGW policy.

“Again this strengthens my argument”
Circular reasoning and ad hom don’t strengthen your argument, they weaken it.

“OK JKJ if you need it in black and white...”

Geoff you didn’t answer my question. How do you know the appropriate and moral level of consumption for any given person?.

You say there’s no moral level of consumption, thus surrendering the ground on which the anti-populationists and warmists stand.

(cont.)

So, how do you know the appropriate level of consumption for any given person? Without knowing that, how can you justify your contention that we are consuming too much?

“you have no interest in ensuring the on-going perpetuation of our species”

I assure you I have the most urgent interest in the perpetuation of our species.

You’re misunderstanding the issues, because you’re assuming that policy can make human life more sustainable, when that is precisely what’s in issue.

“Only realists can assess risk correctly, for they lack the bias which colours the judgments of all the others.”

In this whole discussion so far, you have kept assuming that you’re right so you’re biased in favour of your own conclusion, and therefore according to you, you cannot assess risk correctly.

What we need to know is, can the interests of mankind in the on-going perpetuation of our species be better served by the anti-populationists’ policies, or not?

You have assumed, but not demonstrated that they can. When I’ve asked you to prove it, you have either not answered my question, gone around in a circle, or conceded the general issue.

So you haven’t got to square one in establishing that policy can improve the situation, even in your own terms.

The question is this: by what rational criterion do you know whether a given resource should be consumed now or conserved for the future?

The rest of your post is ad hominem and assumes you’re already right.

Hypocrisy is not practising what you preach. In what way is what I’m saying hypocrisy, or making any “moral imposition”? I’m not the one favouring the forcible restriction of people’s freedoms for a theory I can’t rationally defend – you are!

Individual
Please answer the same questions.

Please answer the same questions.
Jardine K Jardine,
No props, as soon as you come over to my side of the road so that I can follow you & see where you're going I'll tell you what you want to hear or perhaps even need to hear.
talk to you tonight.

can the interests of mankind in the on-going perpetuation of our species be better served by the anti-populationists’ policies, or not?
Jardine K jardine,
I could only find the above line of any real relevance in your post. The interests of mankind ?
What are they ? Which grouping of mankind ? I am a firm believer that so far as good/bad mankind is concerned several groups do the damage to our planet. The growth advocates & those who cause the growth advocates to continue to advocate growth-the consumers. The religious who think only mankind needs protecting. Then there are the control freaks who think one group should dictate to another. And last but not least are the academics who think they know better than all others. The ones who keep everything going are those who care, who aren't as greedy, who aren't religious, who don't want to control others & last but not least those who know.
There will always be suffering poor as there will always be those who want more without putting up the effort. The ones who keep everything under as much possible a balance are those who can control themselves i.e. those with a conservative mentality.
Overpopulation will not ruin the planet, it is ruining the planet.

Thank you, individual.

Here it is, in all its self-righteous glory. The driving force behind all this agitation for population control, in one easy-to-digest sound-bite...

>>Overpopulation will not ruin the planet, it is ruining the planet.<<

Self-loathing and hatred of mankind in general simply oozes from this heartfelt assertion, does it not.

It's all our fault, for being born in the first place. And if only all those people in Uganda, or Sudan, or Niger, or Burkina Faso would stop exercising their rights as people to procreate, my life in the sleepy suburbs of Australia would be so, so much happier. How dare they.

Staggering.