False dilemma, Ateday :)

Interesting that that's the only way you can see the issue.

OF COURSE, the growth of population may need to be slowed down, by such indirect methods as universal women's education (cheaper than mass extermination, although I suppose you're doing the maths right now ?) mass availability of contraception, raising the age of marriage and, of course, making it completely voluntary, and the raising of world wages to first-world levels.

That might stabilise population in, say, a century. By that time the population may have reached ten billion, but may start declining IF the anti-pops make the sacrifice that they assume of others, so that the world population may reach only 9.99999 billion.

But with relative affluence around the world, the birth-rate will have started to decline well before then: look at Japan and Russia and most of Europe. Of course, even with 2.0 births per couple, population will still grow simply because people will be living longer. So perhaps by 2114, birth-rate decline could be so rapid that they balance the growth in longer-living populations.

So maybe by 2164, 150 years from now, world population may be declining due to lower birth-rates out-matching older-population growth - so world population could be declining at a rapid rate, say 0.01 % p.a. from about then. At that rate, world population could be reduced by 1 % every 70-80 years, by 10 % in 500-600 years, and down by 95 % in barely five thousand years.

That's if future populations follow your advice and consider themselves a blight on the universe. Of course, if they assume the alternative, that people represent talent and potential, every person, none of that may occur.

But never fear, Ateday, elitism may still prevail :)

Joe

You are very hopeful Grim.
You are correct. The other less humane solutions put forward by such as Loudmouth would no doubt work but I don`t think many would appreciate.
Education is the way which leads to less poverty and ultimately less people. But do we have time?
I sadly don`t think so.
I am just fortunate that my, non existent, offspring won`t be the ones paying the ultimate and extreme price.
It really doesn`t matter how sustainable a lifestyle you lead humans are still consumers and sooner or later we shall run out of fresh breathable air and fresh drinkable water.
Why not try and solve the basic problem instead of continually putting band aids on the symptoms.

Geeeez ! Another academic telling everyone how flawed we humans are ! Wake up mate and have a look around at the real world !

Ateday,

You may be right, we've reached the limits of innovation in all things: maybe better ways of using water or air are just illusions. Nothing's going to improve from now on.

But sorry, I don't think so, with respect: people have so far, innovated in all sorts of ways, and I expect that they will continue to do so, and in ways that we can't even know now.

But keep at it, we all need a good chortle now and then.

Joe

For those who read too quickly, the point of the article was that we do not need to make confections out of what people say in order to make their words punchier: if you do some more work you can find what their position was (or is), and express it accurately — and you should.

While I'm away from base at the moment, I do recall that the correct quotes were those of Schneider, Ehrlich and HRH — can't recall the other — and that some of those who argued that they were misreported had in fact said very similar things (but see [1] above).

As for Schneider, he was also, but in the 1970s, a doomsday person about the coming ice age. I found him a discourteous and arrogant interlocutor when we crossed swords about global warming in 2008.

No, I can't prove all this, but I repeat that it is hard to read this stuff, and the other material I read about each of them, without feeling that in most cases there seems to be an almost visceral emotion of an anti-human kind. There are too many of us; we are fouling the world; we are out of control etc. They could do worse than read Matt Ridley about how much better off humans are now than they were fifty years ago. And if they don't agree, explain why.

And as for HRH, heaven knows what he really thinks.

Wow, didn't that bring out the tenured brigade.

Yep, all those who believe they are superior, & should be chosen to head a new world order, & breed.

Well fellers, just remember who got the chop during China's cultural revolution. If you look at China since you can see that getting rid of many who believed in their privilege has done the country the world of good.

So do be careful kiddies. They say you should never have a royal commission, if you don't know what it might find. I think that might go double for revolutions. You could easily loose control of the killing, & find the target has been moved, right to the center of your forehead.