As SPA/SPP are linked to John Tanton and The Social Contract Press via Mark O'Connor and Dr. Bob Birrell of Monash University (& colleagues), one should take this facade of concern about overpopulation with a large grain of salt.

Without empirical evidence they provide a guilt free way to oppose immigration, etc.. through distortion, inflation and conflation of data, which all seems reasonable, plausible and having resonance in Australia.

Further, SPP/SPA seem neither willing to divulge their links to Tanton. nor how they would put their demands into action e.g. "one in one out", etc. requiring Nuremburg type laws, ID cards, increased bureaucracy, flood of Australian "immigrants" (after reciprocal visa treaties are cancelled) thus defeating the purpose of the whole movement, but that's not the point is it?

Tanton's views on immigrants are best exemplified by some choice issues of TSCP, e.g. 2007 issue given over to Vdare, white supremcists of a very nasty kind, interview with racist author Jean Raspail (Camp of Saints) by Australia's own Katherine Betts etc..

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/the-social-contract-press

Anti Defamation League's profile of Vdare (plus they have plenty on Tanton's network and adherents):

http://blog.adl.org/tags/vdare

Has anyone ever asked Dr. Bob Birrell, Paul Ehrlich, Dick Smith, Bob Carr, Tim Flannery, Kelvin Thompson (PFIR), Cory Bernardi (ALEC), et al why they have direct or indirect links to the John Tanton network?

Further, are journalists who quote or cite Dr. Bob Birrell's "research" aware of these connections i.e. Fairfax, ABC Radio (Faine, Williams, Adam et al), News Corp or are they too embarrassed after being duped (one would hope) by propagating dodgy data and xenophobic views for several decades? (even most Liberal party people view them as a joke, but Labor (and several key unions), the founders of the "white Australia policy" no?)

Agenda 21 had its origins way back in 1968.This was all about giving power to a few hundred elites on this planet who control our monetary system,absolute power under the guise of saving the planet from nuke wars and climate change.

People like Henry Kissenger and Obama's science Tsar John Holdren want to see the world's pop reduced by 90%.Will they volunteer to be first to go?

The environment will continue to change, but will somehow survive, the carbon-thing is a hoax anyway, so humanity will just apply more ingenuity and survive with even greater numbers. Even the environment will be saved by using DNA from extinct species to revive them. So what's the problem?

What the author failed to address is the price of having more people. Not the economic price, not the environmental price, but the cost to the meaning of life.

Increased population requires increased technology, thus increased human organisation and specialisation.

Yes, if we take it to the extreme, it is even possible to live in a submarine or a space-ship, but the level of regulation and collectivism there is extreme.

The only way to sustain more people on earth, is increased technology. If the world stopped growing at any stage, then some could claim that technology makes them happier (which I doubt). However, instead of enjoying the technology, the world doesn't stop, human-numbers keep increasing, demanding ever higher technologies. This in-turn, diverts us from having a meaningful life: instead we operate as a tiny cog in an ever-increasing machine, devoting our time to serve technology itself rather than any meaningful pursuit.

The author dislikes corporations, but BOTH corporations and government are just symptoms of population-pressure. Both grind us down, treating us like cells of a larger organism, or ant-colony, rather than as individuals.

The author makes the following chilling conclusion:

<<For a nation, the ultimate economic goal is to have rising output per head, produced on a sustainable basis, distributed fairly, with jobs for everyone who wants to work. Productivity and workplace participation and population growth are the main means to that end.>>

Indeed, that's what a "nation" would want if it had a life, if it were a sentient being. There's "input"/"output" and we're just "heads". "Nation" wants to grow and become healthy and wealthy... What about us?!

Our happiness, meaning and quality of life means practically nothing when there are so-many billions of others.

Those numbers should come down, not because they are technically-unsustainable, but because they bring us misery.

Overpopulation is a green Malthusian myth swallowed by people who live in overcrowded cities. The fact is that everyone in the world could fit into Texas with enough space for a townhouse for every family of four.

There are vast uninhabited regions of the Earth and we grow much more food than we need already we just cant store it long enough to keep it fresh so it get wasted. Population is decreasing in many parts of the world and will peak soon if it hasn't already.

Alarmist projections are usually from the UN which wants to create a view of the world to align with its aims to increase its own power to dictate what people eat, where they live and whether they reproduce or not.

GROOOOOAN!

Yet another anti-anti-pop article from Malcolm King, the fifth so far this year, less than 8 weeks after the last one.
Every 7-8 weeks we get another one!

Why is OLO/Forum allowing this?
His articles add nothing new, they just regurgitate what he's already said before!

I think we should all boycott his future articles and simply refuse to comment on them.
Maybe then OLO will get the message. Enough already!

Tired of his article or the unwelcome attention to details such as lack of empirical research,not acknowledging contrary evidence, dubious white nativist links, and then attacking the messenger...... meanwhile rent a quote Birrell and SPA/SPP seek out any opportunity to appear in mainstream media appearing all cuddly and plausible while negatively stereotyping all those dusky foreigners..