Yes but would a coalition government have done any better over the last few years?

We’d like to think that they wouldn’t have turned a big surplus into a massive debt, or bungled so many policies initiatives.

It is hard to imagine that they could have done as poorly as Labor. But then in 2007 no one could have imagined that Rudd and Gillard would lead such a ratty gang of wrongdoers!

In all probability the Coalition would have had a highly chequered record as well.

They are basically two peas in a pod. There is very little difference between them.

So now Rudd is set to make a return, which will apparently lift Labor’s chances of winning the next election from nil to 50/50.

And yet Rudd is at least as guilty as Gillard for Labor’s dismal record.

"They are basically two peas in a pod. There is very little difference between them."

That is basically wrong.

The coalition would not have produced such an obscene debt. They would not have let in 44000 illegal boat-people. They would not have introduced a carbon tax.

The coalition however, still thinks renewable energy is viable; in this they are similar in not being able to understand renewable energy is a scam. Still I think their support of renewable energy is not as profound as the Gillard government's.

And noone could be as incompetent as this government; they are incapable of doing anything right.

Reaping what we have indivdually and collectively sown indeed!

It seems to me that Chris Hedges summed up the world situation altogether, and more specifically the USA and to a lesser degree here in the land of OZ via his recent essay titled - A Brave New Distopia On Brave New World & 1984.

That having been said the humanly created world is now in a state of individual and collective psychosis, or put more simply we are collectively insane - havent you noticed.

Which is also to say that the human world is now ungovernable or completely beyond any kind of human control.

At least that is the summary observation of the author of this essay:
http://www.dabase.org/p8realpolitik.htm
And pointed too (and described) in the multiple points here:
http://www.dabase.org/not2p1.htm

What is interesting about these references, particularly the multiple points, is that those on the so called conservative side of the culture wars divide actually promote all of the negative phenomenon and tendencies as a cultural imperative or a measure of our supposed "success" and the "triumph" of Western "civilization".

Speaking of being held to account for crimes that were ACTUALLY committed and caused the murder of more than 100,000 human, the deliberate destruction of the infrastructure of Iraq, and continuing misery for millions of human beings, including that caused by Depleted Uranium, John Howard should be tried as a war criminal (under international law).
This reference provides a starting point for the criminal evidence.
http://erasingiraq.com

As does the book War Without End The Iraq War in Context by Michael Schwartz (see http://www.tomdispatch.com )

" Every other economic policy this government has done, from the Building Education revolution, to the Mining tax, to the National Broadcast Network, has either featured such cost overruns that the integrity and benefit of what would otherwise may have been a reasonable policy idea has been undermined ... "

Economic policies were developed on the run, e.g. the NBN idea was hatched and adopted during an airline flight . Major projects went ahead without a cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, the benefits were poorly defined and grossly exaggerated, and the cost overruns were the result of gross cost underestimation and incompetent project management.

Daffy Duck: "Speaking of being held to account for crimes that were ACTUALLY committed and caused the murder of more than 100,000 human, the deliberate destruction of the infrastructure of Iraq, and continuing misery for millions of human beings ... "

You need not look overseas for examples of crimes against humanity. Every year, some 100,000 innocent human beings, namely unborn babies, are slaughtered in Australia. Shamefully, this is allowed under a law which ignores the fact that human life starts at the moment of conception

you guys are in la la land, the Libs would have done the same thing labor did. Labor did the same thing as very other major cestern contry did and it didn't matter who was in power.

Just look at the UK, france to number but two contries at the time run by right wing parties yet doing the same as labor.

If your beloved Tony had of been in power and done these things you would be hailing him a hero.

<< The coalition would not have produced such an obscene debt. They would not have let in 44000 illegal boat-people. >>

You are presumably right cohenite.

These are very big factors indeed in favour of the Coalition.

However, the other things that you have mentioned as positives for the Coalition are in fact negatives for our society.

Not introducing a carbon tax, not being as supportive of renewable energy as Labor, and probably not being as proactive in a number of policy areas, are negatives.

Labor is highly antisustainability-oriented. But the Coalition is even worse. This is the biggest consideration of all…… or at least it should be.

So in terms of the overall ethic / philosophy / political direction / methodology, there is very little difference between the Libs and Labs.

But all-considered, I think the Labs come out slightly in front. And the other thing to consider is that there is a far greater chance of Labor swinging more towards a sustainable future than the Coalition.

There is just no sign of anything good at all with Abbott’s mob! If he could stop the boats, that would be a huge thing in his favour. But I just can’t see it happening.

In comparison with the propganda that Alan Austin writes Anthony you are a genius. Then again dont get to big headed cause all you have to do is point out the truth. Thanks.

"And the other thing to consider is that there is a far greater chance of Labor swinging more towards a sustainable future than the Coalition."

Define "sustainable" please.

In respect of AGW and the 'science' which justifies renewable energy and "sustainability", what ever that is see my post here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

Cohenite, your paper: ‘Man-Made Global Warming WRONG - The Ten Reasons’, begs the question: why are you so hell-bent on denouncing anthropogenic global warming?

Why is it so important to you that it not be real?

The fact is; you can’t dismiss it! We just don’t know.

Despite all the things against it which you list, you can’t be anywhere near sure that it isn’t happening.

You’re not a skeptic, you’re an absolute denialist!

If we don’t know, then we should err on the side of caution. And that basically means doing what the climate-change fearers advocate.

I notice your real name on this document. So it was you who going under your real name behaved in an absolutely disgusting manner on another forum, pulling every dirty trick out of the bag that you could to shut me (and a small number of others who dared to express views opposed to yours) down and get me to leave the forum, rather than simply debate the matter. Well congratulations for that!

As for sustainability, if you don’t know what it is by now, after all our discussions on OLO, then give up, you never will!

And um…. how on earth can you have any sort of a handle on which policies are right for our future if you don’t have a clue about sustainability?

Is everything that you advocate really short-term oriented with no thought of the somewhat longer term?

It would seem that your AGW denialism and thus presumably the advocation of the continued use of fossil fuels at a similar rate of increase to what we’ve had for the last decade or so, would fit right into this short-term outlook and be totally at odds with the best longer term sustainability-oriented plan.

So, as it concerns the subject of this thread; Labor should be reaping praise for initiating the carbon tax and exhorting alternative energy sources. This really should be seen by the electorate as a big positive.

Ludwig; I am against AGW because:

1 It is wrong and bad science; the evidence that it is bad science is now incontrovertible.

2 The money diverted to AGW 'science', reneweable energies and other policies which rely on AGW being real is simply vast: 100's of billions of dollars have been wasted.

3 Science and genuine understanding of the climate and weather, a vital need for human society, has taken a black eye due to the subversion of the scientific process by AGW.

I am not a denialist; I deal with facts as best ascertained; AGW science has not supplied facts.

Define sustainability. If it is so simple it should be a doodle for you.

I despise the term actually because it gives carte blanche to the alarmists and other ideological and opportunistic AGW travellers to beat up anyone who criticises this scam; as in; 'you can't do that, it's unsustainable.'

So, what does it mean; give me a working definition, or at least your understanding of it.

If you can't define it don't expect me to respect it or it's advocates.

cohenite,

"I despise the term actually..."

Well aaccttuuaallly....that's the pot calling the kettle black. Your lot delights in referring to the other side as "alarmists" or "climate extremists" or "warmists" or whatever, to name a few, but it seems you all feign a confected sensitivity to being described by the eminently accurate term "denier".

Interesting.

Just once, Poirot, can you make a comment of substance and refrain from these cute little asides which you obviously think are so witty?

<< the evidence that it is bad science is now incontrovertible. >>

No cohenite, all the science is not incontrovertible, and your 'evidence' that AGW isn’t happening is certainly not incontrovertible.

<< 100's of billions of dollars have been wasted. >>

Probably right. An awful lot of money has been spent on trying to deal with the issue, but it has been dismally unsuccessful. To that extent, yes it has been wasted.

So what should we do? Bloody well try harder! Basically efforts to date have been piddling compared to the magnitude of the issue.

Re: sustainability, I just get sick of defining something which everyone should have a handle on by now. I’ve done it a zillion times on this forum.

OK, here’s the zillion and oneth…

Sustainability – the capacity to endure. We need to balance supply and demand, rather than continuously and rapidly increasing the demand for all manner of resources, goods, services and infrastructure, which is what is happening in Australia. We need to look at the supply capability of all our essential resources, and where that is tenuous we need to plan for alternatives and/or for a capping of the demand. We need to look at the negative impacts of all manner of things that we do, and strive to remedy them and certainly to not continue to increase the causal factors. Etc.

I hope you get the picture.

.
Thankyou for not denying your despicable antics on the other forum.

And burned it on a bonfire of their vanities.

“despicable antics on the other forum.”

I don’t know what you mean; are you just having a cheap shot?

“the capacity to endure”

Enduring is good but just enduring can be a bit tedious. I prefer Nietzsche: ““That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” That’s the human condition: improving. Read up on ‘The Will to Power’.

“balance supply and demand”

No. Read Says Law. After all there was no initial demand for immunisation, computers or flush toilets once or any of the technology and lifestyle products we enjoy today; your statement is merely a form of Ludditism.

Decreasing demand and your waffle about what is essentially consumerism is straight out of the Clive Hamilton thesis about “Growth fetish”, which is reviewed here:

http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-magazine/2003-spring/2003-19-3-andrew-norton.pdf

Basically your comment is a mishmash of Malthusian principles and misonewism or what Toffler called Future Shock.

All wrapped up in an unhealthy dose of pessimism. Are you a pessimist?
I mean, what are you on about? Your definition is very muddled.

What is sustainable depends entirely on technology and ideological interpretation of what technology is appropriate or acceptable.

For instance are you opposed to Thorium power?

Are you opposed to GM?

Do you think human population must be cut, drastically or otherwise?

Are you against space exploration, which is the natural extension of the human condition, or are you one of these misanthropes who not only want humans not to leave Earth but to become extinct to save Earth from humanity’s destruction of nature?

cohenite,

I forgot you're an enthusiast for the proposition that humans should leave the earth and colonise other planets.

It's a shame we've evolved to exist on this one - and with our advancing ingenuity we don't even possess the wisdom to get that right.

Oh dear, so you're a misanthrope Poirot, as described in these 2 articles:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/our-abc-green-narrative.html

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/kids.html

But let me clarify something; in your disgust at humanity:

"It's a shame we've evolved to exist on this one - and with our advancing ingenuity we don't even possess the wisdom to get that right."

Do you include yourself; or, as I suspect, do you regard yourself to be exempt from the failings of the rest of humanity which make them unworthy to continue to exist?

Don't be so puerile, cohenite.

What's wrong with looking after the planet we evolved on?

I mean, we are what we are because of the properties on this planet.

And my reference to not being wise enough to manage things was more along the lines of this:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

Wow cohenite, you are actually trying to completely poo-poo the very principle of sustainability!

That is really most extraordinary!

<< What is sustainable depends entirely on technology and ideological interpretation of what technology is appropriate or acceptable. >>

Dear oh dear! What is sustainable depends on the demand and the supply capability of resources and on the scale of the negative factors associated with our activities.

Technology is but one small part of the picture.

You really do have absolutely no regard for balance between demand and supply. Unbelievable!

At least now I can understand why you are a total AGW denialist!

Please, reconsider your whole position, right from scratch, bearing in mind what would happen if the demand for energy keeps on growing while the supply capability doesn’t. And remember; the supply capability doesn’t actually have to decline. If it grows at a rate that is a little less than demand, thus creating upward pressure on prices, thus critically affecting economics on all levels and affecting a person’s capacity to purchase that energy, then it will start to cause major problems.

In fact, if the energy-provision growth-rate keeps right up with demand, but the price continues to increase, due to increasing costs of extraction, it will still cause major upheavals.

And no, we cannot rely on technology alone to get us out of this looming energy crisis.

Do I support thorium power? Yes. But with the provisos that it is safe, clean and economically viable. Same sort of thing applies for GM.

The human population should not be cut, but we should make every effort to stabilise it and then encourage a long-term slow reduction, due to the birthrate being less than the natural deathrate.

Your she'll-be-right business-as-usual position is very hard to fathom.

But then, your position does seem to be pretty close to that of one A. Abbott, and only slightly removed from one J. Gillard.

"Dear oh dear! What is sustainable depends on the demand and the supply capability of resources and on the scale of the negative factors associated with our activities."

No. The main factors are, firstly, technological discovery and enhancement of resources and as a corollary mitigation of negative side effects, primarily real pollution not AGW which alarmists like you are fixated on.

Secondly and most dominantly, policy decisions on what is an acceptable use and deployment of resources. For instance we have seen the catatastrophe of managed social and economic use of resources in communism, in pol pot's agrarian revolution so beloved by academics like Hamilton and finally North Korea.

In those societies there was no strain on natural resource supply and demand never exceeded supply, did it?! They all had elite people telling others what to do, didn't they?!

You are a pessimist who thinks that the universe is exhausted and that humanity should live within its means. Your imagination is stunted and your moral outrage enormous. Inevitably your solution consists of these elite people restricting use of resources for reasons other than availability through technological enhancement.

I really think these are the characteristics which inform AGW believers.

Go away and read Says Law. And read about space exploration and the serendipity of technology

<< No. The main factors are, firstly, technological discovery and enhancement of resources… >>

No no no, cohenite. The MAIN factor is achieving a balance between demand and supply in such a way that it can be maintained, and with a big safety margin.

The great flaw in your thinking is your worship of technology, and your complete lack of concern about this balance.

I presume from your support of technology that you are a great advocate of human ingenuity.

But hold on… technology is only part of human smartness. We need holistic human intelligence to prevail here.

And when we see technology, such as cars, better ways of extracting oil and coal, better agricultural methods, etc leading us towards massive future problems, we need to exercise a different part of our smartness in order to mitigate the looming downsides.

Technology has been used overwhelmingly on the supply side of the equation (and as an advocate of Say’s Law, you should be able to appreciate the importance of demand and supply in the discipline of economics).

It has facilitated the increase in demand. It has allowed our population to burgeon. It has directly led us into a situation where we now have to be very mindful of the highly unsustainable nature of our activities.

We have NOT used technology well in terms of our longer term future. We need to exercise our intelligence to a similar extent on the other side of the great economic equation. That is; on the demand side.

Primarily that means controlling population growth, globally, nationally and in some regions and cities.

Hey, this is not new to our politicians. Both Bligh and Beatty made noises about this with reference to southeast Queensland. Carr was on about it in relation to Sydney for the whole time he was NSW PM. And Gillard said she wants a sustainable Australia.

So, what we desperately need is a political leader and party to go with it…. which I reckon would draw a great deal of support from the general populace.

Says Law says that a production or supply can create a demand.

You seem to be interpreting this as a source of frivolous items and/or greed.

This is not the case; great utility and improvement, often unintended or unexpected, hence serendipity, comes from the inherent creativity of new, improved or even transported ideas and goods and services.

What you are doing is imposing a value judgement on demand which is akin to saying anything above the bottom rung of Maslow's pyramid is a luxury and unsustainable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg

This explains your confusion about population; population in itself does not increase demand; the masses of India put less demand on resources than the much less population of the US; the difference is quality of lifestyle.

In this context quality can be reduced to the satisfaction of the bottom 2 rungs of Maslow's pyramid and only then can the top 3 rungs be available.

Religion aside, the greatest check on population growth is prosperity; that is the satisfaction of the bottom 2 rungs.

You, like many Malthusians, put the cart before the horse and seek to reduce demand by reducing population, the necessary method of achieving prosperity. Ironically this involves reducing prosperity so in effect you would cause the very problem, population growth, that you seek to avoid.

<< Says Law says that a production or supply can create a demand. >>

Gee, that Say fellow must have been a smart cookie! Of course the production or supply of a resource or good can create a demand!

<< population in itself does not increase demand >>

Oh! So when the population of Australia increases, a demand for food, services, infrastructure, goods of all sorts, etc, etc, is not created on top of the pre-existing demand, isn’t it.

Of course it is. Of course population creates a demand.

<< the greatest check on population growth is prosperity >>

Prosperity certainly lowers the birthrate, but it doesn’t ‘check’ population growth, and it certainly doesn’t check the unsustainable effects of population growth if per-capita resource usage and waste-production increase along with increasing prosperity, which they certainly do!

What are you really advocating here? It seems that your worship of technology is directed towards a more prosperous future. But your worship of completely untempered population growth and hence unsustainable resource usage and environmental impacts, just flies totally in the face of this.

They are totally at odds!

If you want a healthy prosperous future, you should be advocating both technological advance and population / resource usage stabilisation.

Consider Paul Ehrlich’s famous equation: I = PAT.

A – affluence

T – technology.

We need technological advance AND population control. And we need to be very mindful that increasing affluence and hence increasing per-capita resource usage and waste production is also a major factor.

Cohenite, advocating technological advance without population mitigation is just completely nonsensical.

I = PAT.

Ehrlich is not an authority for anything; his predictions have not eventuated and his Malthusian doom and gloom is discredited.

Like Ehrlich, like AGW, your notion of sustainability and constraining human population and SOL is predicated basically on a notion of pristine nature as it is now and an imperative that natural process must not be interfered with.

And given that, who decides what level of interference with nature is acceptable?

Currently it is the AGW scientists whose predictions have had as much sucess as Ehrlich's; which is to say none.

At some stage, just like Ehrlich's terminology, a decision has to be made and a line in the sand drawn about no new encroachment, no new technology to improve crops or power, and that a level of population must not be exceeded.

What are you proposing, a Soylent Green approach?

If you increase prosperity, educate women and mitigate religious influence [since the biggest impulse for population increase, outside of poverty, is now islam, although obviously islam and poverty go hand in hand] population will reduce.

I don't revere nature, I respect it.

Notions of sustainability are evanescent and meaningless unless quantified, and increasingly they seem to be based on a worshipful attitude towards nature with humans vandals of the glory of nature.

To me, ultimately, this is misanthropy.

Let's see, the story so far, on AGW and population:

* world temperatures have gone up 2 degrees in 140 years. Canberrans must wake up horrified of the implications of that on these mornings.

* sea-levels have gone up 2 inches in a century. Has any body noticed ?

* average world temperatures have not risen for fifteen years now. Of course,they might, any year soon. But they haven't.

* as Cohenite points out, when women are educated, for a host of reasons, the birth-rate goes down. In Russia, japan, and most European countries, is the population booming ? or flattening ? Or declining ?

Maybe Henny-Penny got it wrong.

So can we put aside all this nonsense and get back to the real dilemmas facing us ?

Joe

Cohenite, you seem to be profoundly confused and self-contradictory.

You say:

<< If you increase prosperity, educate women and mitigate religious influence [since the biggest impulse for population increase, outside of poverty, is now islam, although obviously islam and poverty go hand in hand] population will reduce. >>

Firstly, allow me to correct you: the rate of population growth would reduce, but population itself would continue to increase. I’m sure that is what you meant to say.

But yes you are quite correct here.

You are espousing this as a good thing, which puts you in large part in agreement with us Malthusians and Ehrlichians!!

So then, why is it not sensible to more directly strive to lower the birthrate as part of the education of women, and the lobbying of religious leaders and governments to assist in lowering the birthrate?

Are you going to discriminate between different aspect of the education of women and poo poo the bits that are more directly related to lowering the birthrate while applauding the bits that might in a secondary or tertiary manner have some effect on the birthrate in the longer term?

You need to figure out just what it is that you are supporting and not supporting here cohenite.

<< Like Ehrlich, like AGW, your notion of sustainability and constraining human population and SOL is predicated basically on a notion of pristine nature as it is now and an imperative that natural process must not be interfered with. >>

What a bizarre assertion cohenite!

We are talking about human sustainability, about resource demand and supply and about the continuously increasing demand side of the equation while the supply side is showing enormous signs of faltering.

<< At some stage, just like Ehrlich's terminology, a decision has to be made and a line in the sand drawn about …, no new technology… >>

What??

Have you just made this up or what??

When have those who advocate a sustainable future ever denounced technology?

Of COURSE we need technological improvements. But what we also desperately need is for these improvements to not facilitate continuous population growth. At the same time that we need to improve food-production technologies and all manner of other technologies, we need to learn how to stop the population and the resource consumption and environmental impact from forever growing. It comes back to managing the supply AND demand sides of the essential equation, rather than just forever working on trying to increase supply.

You are presenting a totally closed mind to anything other than your entrenched (and really quite bizarre) views. You are attributing absolute end-of-the-spectrum views to those with whom you disagree.

Maybe if you looked at what they were saying in a more balanced manner, you would see that they are not saying anything like what you are saying that they are saying! ( :>/

Ehrlich IS indeed a foremost authority on population and sustainability.

My basic premise and that of the vast majority of ‘Malthusians’ is NOT one of pristine nature.

Notions of sustainability are NOT evanescent or meaningless unless quantified.

And as for your reference to Soylent Green, well it just shows how loopy and extremist your thought processes really are!

"while the supply side is showing enormous signs of faltering."

No, it is not. You forget Ehrlich LOST his bet to do with shortages of resources. Your guru has NO successful predictions.

We could go but until you are prepared to say what is an unacceptable use of technology to increase supply or indeed whether there is a limit to supply in any or all categories you are just spinning on the spot.

Pick energy for example; how would you limit that in the context of the natural environment?

KEVIN Rudd said he resumes the task he began in 2007 "with humility" and he praised the "extraordinary intelligence" of Julia Gillard who had been "a remarkable reformer."

(Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/labor-leadership-live-kevin-rudd-returns-julia-gillard-loses-support-of-partyroom/story-fnho52ip-1226669921693#ixzz2XKRElF6C)

One has to admire Kevin's humility. It must have been gut-wrenching to dismiss a predecessor possessing such "extraordinary intelligence" who had been "a remarkable reformer."

In 2007 we had Kevin 07.
This year it will be Kevin 13 -- is this an indicator that his luck will finally run out?

<< No, it is not >>

Oh please cohenite, don’t make completely ridiculous assertions!

<< You forget Ehrlich LOST his bet to do with shortages of resources >>

You forget that what he got wrong was the timeline. The principle of what he was saying is rock-solid.

<< Your guru has NO successful predictions. >>

Hahaha. Here you are espousing a higher standard of living and education for women as being key things that would reduce population growth. Well guess what….. This is one of Ehrich’s prime assertions.

So again I say that you are confused and you need to sort out just what it is you support and don’t support here.

You have this terribly polarised approach of just blanketly condemning those with whom you disagree. Well… life ain’t that simple. You really do need to look at it all a bit more broadmindedly than that!

"This is one of Ehrich’s prime assertions."

Link please.

cohenite:
http://vtdigger.org/2013/05/01/biologist-paul-ehrlich-gives-dire-prediction-for-global-civilization/

Ehrlich said we also need to concentrate on gradually slowing and then reversing population growth. The Earth’s carrying capacity is 1.5 billion people at the very most. To cut the global population from its current level to 1.5 billion, we need a fertility rate of 1.5 children per family.

“How do you do it humanely? Well, first thing you do is work very hard to get every woman on the planet exactly the same rights, opportunities, pay, and so on as every man. When women get rights, birth rates go down.” Next, promote birth control. “Those two things alone would go far to solve the population problem.”

1.5 billion, eh? So everyone who is not Chinese has to disappear.

Ehrlich's predictions:

http://badpredictions.blogspot.com.au/

I didn't see anything there about educating women.

I don't mind a bit of paranoia but Erhlich's variety is misanthropic.

Misanthropism is now a burgeoning ideology.

Strange times.

The reductionists have a number of ways to contemplate population reduction:

* slow down or reduce the birth-rate, i.e. at the front-end; or

* 'hasten' the reduction in the older population, i.e. at the back-end;
or

* wholesale 'reductions' across the population.

The last two are somewhat fascist, but I'm sure have been contemplated. But let's run with just the first, bearing in mind that the smaller the younger population, the larger its burden in supporting the older population (aha, now you're thinking about option 2, aren't you ?)

But if PR is to be achieved humanely, with nobody being killed or Soylented, then that burden on the younger generations has to be as light as possible. So the relative sizes of the younger and older populations has to be bearable.

If we assume, for argument's sake, that the health etc. systems could just bear a ratio of young to old, which is 'tilted' 20 % towards the old from the present situation, i.e. increasing the burden on the young by roughly 20 %, in terms of reducing unemployment benefits, increasing taxes, et., then the population in each century can be reduced by, perhaps as much, with a birth-rate which is 10 % lower than it is now.

In other words, very crudely, an annual reduction in the birth-rate of an average across each century of 0.1 %, 0.1 % p.a. Any higher and the burden shifts too heavily onto the younger generations over the next fifty and a hundred years, and for every century after that, until the population has stabilised at Mr Ehrlich's 1.5 billion.

Since that would total a reduction of about 80 % from the world's present population, then we can expect that this happy target can be reached in about 800 years, say a thousand years in round terms.

Of course, we have to premise that, in the mean-time, food production, water-use, etc. techniques will not improve by much, and that human needs across the world will not increase.

See you in a thousand years, folks !

Cohenite, Paul Ehrlich on educating women: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sixth-extinction

Will you now do the right thing and admit that you do at least in part agree with Ehrlich, and me?

Will you now recognise your folly in just outrightly dismissing those with whom you disagree, especially when you don’t even know about some of the basic points in their arguments?