We can have the benefits of immigration within a framework of a stable population: low birth rates and emigration leave plenty of room for a good number of immigrants and refugees.

Yes indeed Candide. I reckon that’s exactly what we’d have if our government could divorce itself from the future-destroying influence of big business and start listening to the ordinary people instead.

Hi Candide,

You posed a “serious question” for me, do I “believe the world has the capacity to cope with an infinitely large population?”

How can anything be “infinitely large”? I thought you said it was a serious question?

Before you try to use “scary words” like infinitely, Google it first.

I do think those who concern themselves with such issues as peak oil, peak food production, peak populations or peak anything for that matter, are just inventing a “threat” so that they can offer their ideological solution, because that’s what ideologues do.. They do this by employing a range of tactics.

2. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, the group and/or the leadership has a special mission to save humanity.
3. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.
8. Crisis Creation - They employ tactics designed to create or deepen confusion, fear, guilt or doubt.
9. All The Answers - Provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create.
17. It believes 'the end justifies the means'
21. It supports extreme obsessiveness regarding the group orthodoxy, resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
29. Need to internalize the group's doctrine as "Truth"
33. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful.

We can go through these in more detail when you get back to me.

Spindoc,

What about all those warnings from the scientific community about shortages or losses of fresh water (for example aquifers being pumped dry under the Punjab), arable land, biodiversity, fish stocks, cheap fossil fuels and minerals, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes, leading to riots over pollution in China, for example? In your view, those scientists must be either fools, so that even laymen like yourself or Cheryl know better, even if you have no scientific education or experience working in the particular field, or they are lying and part of some vast global conspiracy. How likely are either of these alternatives?

What about continuing high commodity prices, for crude oil, phosphate rock, food, etc.? See the chart in this link for crude oil prices since 1946.

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

It is true that prices are down from the peak in 2007/2008, before the global financial crisis reduced demand, but they are still a lot higher in real terms than they were before 2007 and show no signs of coming down. From the chart linked to, crude oil prices are more than double what they were in 2000 in real terms. If there were no real material shortages out there, no hard physical limits, you would expect competition and the wonders of the free market to bring prices back down.

It is hard to see how you can drink wine and keep your head in the sand at the same time. I actually think that our problems with high population growth go well beyond the livability of our cities, but that is certainly one of them. You and Cheryl are trying to use ridicule to distract attention from the idea that people should have any say in what happens to their neighbourhoods, but without coming out and saying so.

Sorry to have blown your brain with 'infinitely large', Spindoc: try 'a thousand billion' instead. Now stop ducking the question.

Candide/Divergence,

Candide, so when do you anticipate we will reach a “thousand billion” population? I like big numbers as much as the next man but I would have to say that any extrapolation over such time would be near impossible, but I could hazard a guess.

We currently have a global population of 7.103 billion people, (as at July 4, 2013) with a predicted 9.3 billion by 2050. That’s 2.206 billion increase per 37 years. That is 13% growth per 37 years. Accepting that the growth rate is non-linear, we can expect the population to reach a “thousand billion” in 100,000,000 years. (100 million years) which takes us to the year………? Oh for pities sake, stop being so freekin’ stupid Candide.

Divergence, at least your dialogue bears some resemblance to the issues that have an impact on population sustainability.

You sort of spoiled it when you said << even if you have no scientific education or experience working in the particular field >>, to which I would respond with, so what are your qualifications in this field? Please advise?

I think you misunderstand what has happened to you. This issue for you is not about facts, figures or reality, it is about ideology. Like I said to Candide, you “invent” an unsubstantiated problem, oversimplify it and try to deliver an oversimplified solution.

If you wish to buy into Candide’s problem that could potentially emerge in about 100 million years, be my guest.

If on the other hand you wish to analyze the issues, many of which you correctly identified, (misrepresented but correct as factors), then you need to stop representing them as un-weighted issues and add them as “assumption” based, as any worthy analyst would do.

If you assign a value to these based upon ideology they will always be wrong. As weighted factors however, they will be absolutely crucial, but not over 100 million years.

Go Gal, looking forward to hearing from you.