Divergence,

So what DO you mean ? Planned parenthood ? Very gradual population stabilisation (over the next century), then very gradual reduction in the fertility rat4e (say, over the next couple of centuries ) ?

Or the killing of all first-born ? Or everybody over sixty ? Sorry, not 'killing', but 'voluntary' euthanasia ?

It will happen anyway. Can you understand that ? It's already happening in highly developed countries, an even in crap countries like Russia, although for very different reasons. Japan's population is slowly declining, with potentially catastrophic results for elderly health care, and a shrinking of the tax base, etc. n some European countries too.

The key ? Apart from affluence, the key seems to be women's education: wherever women are well-educated, they delay marriage and child-bearing, or don't do either, they tend to have far fewer kids, and even thought they are busy 10-12 hours per day, working women don't seem to have anywhere the average level of child neglect. That says something.

It's even happening in Africa: it seems that fertility rates in some African countries have halved in a couple of generations (and you have to think in terms of generations, not years, with population dynamics).

So you're banging an empty drum.

Joe

Divergence,

A cracker as usual. Jeezzz, it's like kicking puppies. Any other info you need, see my comprehensive list of articles on OLO, New Matilda and Fairfax. As for defamation, you wouldn't know the tort of defamation if it rose up and bit you. Publish and disseminate that! I will say adieu and leave you to plot your silly anti-immigration revolution from your bedroom.

Loudmouth,

Global population:

The problem is not solved. If you look at the charts and tables from the Global Footprint Network, it is clear that there are already too many people to maintain the health of our planetary life support systems and give all of them a decent quality of life.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf

We are only getting by because of the appalling poverty in most of the world and because of environmental overshoot (using up renewable resources faster than they can be replenished). The answers include allowing fertility rates to stay below replacement level, but above 1.5, for a long time, combined with better technology and management.

It is true that fertility rates have fallen in most of the world. The UN's previous medium projection had to be revised upwards, though, because fertility rates have not fallen in Africa as expected. Other projections are even less optimistic

http://news.sciencemag.org/economics/2014/09/experts-be-damned-world-population-will-continue-rise

"To wit, there’s a 95% chance the world population will be between 9 billion and 13.2 billion by the year 2100, the team concludes online today in Science. Much of that growth, it found, will likely take place in Africa, whose population is estimated to rise from 1 billion to 4 billion by the end of the century. And, unlike projections from last decade, the new graphs show a steady increase through 2100 rather than a midcentury leveling off."

Note that a lot of the increase (such as in Asia) will be due to demographic momentum (births in huge young adult generation, most deaths in relatively tiny elderly generation), not high fertility. Growth by demographic momentum can go on for up to 70 years after the fertility rate has dropped to replacement level.

There is still a great deal of unmet demand for contraception, especially in Africa, and addressing that need has been blocked by the Religious Right. Forced pregnancies are just as great a violation of human rights as coercive population control. No one is suggesting compulsion. Education, civil rights, and economic opportunities for women are also very much part of the solution, as you say.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/j.1728-4465.2014.00382.x.pdf

(cont'd)

cont'd

Australia's population:

Here, the problem is with our elite, not our fertility rate. 60% of our population growth is from immigration and perhaps a third of our natural increase, with the rest from demographic momentum. I am not disputing that some immigration is beneficial for cultural and educational reasons, but do we really need to double our population every 43 years (1.6% population growth rate)? Note that the growth rate would probably be higher if the economy weren't in a downturn. It was 2.1% in 2008/2009 (33 year doubling time).

This very rapid growth serves the interests of our business elite, especially our FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) -- more customers, more profits from real estate and the associated lending, and a cheaper, more compliant work force, but it is of no benefit to most of the population. They just get more social inequality, more congestion and inadequate infrastructure, and more competition for jobs, housing, public services, and amenities.

The bigger high consuming population also puts more pressure on the environment. The Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human population growth in Australia as a Key Threatening Process under the Environmental Protection Act.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

Back in 2004, the Australian Academy of Science recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit. We are there already. Australia is a good place to live, but we aren't a big country. We are a small to medium sized country wrapped around a big desert. Why let the greedsters wreck it?