Consider this
Global replacement rate is 2.33 children per woman.
USA = 2.4, UK = 1.7, Aus = 1.76 (2000-05), so telling people to "take responsibility" is really pointing the finger at the third world.

Claiming 'education' is the solution & presenting rich educated populations wanting one child as evidence is ingenuine. Since only the well off can afford education, that evidence rather points to the effect of material security on family size.

Large families provide the only security the poor can achieve, risky as that strategy is for them. But their desperate need for security questions how the first world exploits the third world to provide the standard of living WE demand.

India uses 1.3ha of the earth / person - we use between 3 & 4 times that, but sustainability (and justice!) demands we reduce that to 2ha. Still, it's more pleasant to focus on their ignorance, isn't it.

We should demolish the fraud being committed - we haven't got time to be going down wrong paths blaming the poor or population numbers for the state of the planet or its future!

Selling an idea (eg. over population) is often about telling enough truth to slip in the lie unnoticed from which self interested people can profit.

Chris Baulman
@landrights4all

Malcolm King,

You are assuming that NumbersUSA really is some sort of hate group just because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says so. SPLC is a politicised organisation on the Left that is notorious for trying to shut down debate by labelling political opponents as racists or "haters", while ignoring genuine hate speech from groups that it supports. Here is what a Cornell law professor has to say about them

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/splcs-hatewatch-gives-cover-to-hate/

Even people on the Left who agree with most of their positions are disgusted by their tactics.

“I feel that the Law Center is essentially a fraud and that it has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” (Which doesn’t mean that some of the groups it criticizes aren’t reprehensible.) In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people.”

http://harpers.org/blog/2010/03/hate-immigration-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center/

There has been ongoing controversy about the SPLC's financial management and fundraising methods, as in the Montgomery Advertiser series in 1994 that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.

Here is what the Center for Immigration Studies has to say about the smear tactics

http://www.cis.org/immigration-splc

And here is a link to the NumbersUSA site. If you can find anything racist, I will give $50 to a charity of your choice.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/

Hi landrights4all,

The current philosophy of family planning in the developing world is one of choice, not of coercion. What is your objection to women having a choice? Is is not true that both denial and enforcement can constitute an abuse?

Frankly, I cannot understand the vigor of Malcolm's attack. SPP is one of many minor parties which question the wisdom of Australia's immigration policy. By singling it out, he only gives it publicity. Surely a more logical approach would be to argue the benefit of high immigration. Such an approach would challenge the policy stance, yet give no prominence to anti-immigration parties.

Thanks Divergence,

That will be my next story. Fester is right. Next time it needs to be on a larger canvas.

Shockadelic,

Here is a link to the UN's latest Human Development report with Human Development Index rankings

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Asian countries on the very high human development list are Japan, South Korea, Brunei, Singapore, and Hong Kong. I would agree with you that Hong Kong doesn't belong, as it is not an independent country. Barbados is a black country on the list, and so is Seychelles, where African blacks are the largest single ethnic group, although there are also French, Indians, and Chinese. Then there are Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, white, but not European.

It is true that I should have said that there are a number of white countries ranking lower, not low, although Afghanistan and Yemen are on the low human development list and a number of Latin American countries and Moldova (a European country)are on the medium human development list.

My own view is that if people are poor, backward, and conflict ridden, the problem is far more likely to be due to their culture than their genes. Being white is clearly not a necessary or sufficient condition for very high performance.

Landrights,

Here is a link to the Global Footprint Network 2010 atlas

global footprint network ecological footprint atlas 2010

They are an international thinktank of engineers, scientists, and economists, and have done the numbers on consumption and resources. If you go through their tables, you will see that the billion people in the richest countries are responsible for about 38% of the consumption. Most consumption is in poorer countries. If there are enough people, it doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low.

Hi Divergence,

landrights4all, by claiming very low consumption of the World's poor, enforces the premise that a lack of fertility control hampers economic development. Rand Corporation presents a large body of evidence to support the view that well conducted family planning programs enhance economic development.

I myself hold the old fashioned view that consumption is a measure of achievement, not of shame.