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 !