Foul-Mouth and Bernie Masters,

It's no effort on my part. Believe me when I say that it doesn't take much to make the two of you look stupid and ignorant.

I do it for the sheer enjoyment.

Mr Opinion, if you are being honest with us, then I can only reply by saying you need to take your medication and have a sleep, since your contributions are worthless and the only person you are upsetting is yourself.

This is my understanding..

The link between economic growth and labour ended in the seventies from memory.

Loudmouth said that- "The industrialisation of societies requires more skilled people, and fewer 'work-horses' ". Yes but the government and universities are importing people to satisfy this skills need rather than training people- creating a larger dependent population.

The trick for the business community is to artificially increase the number of consumers while reducing the number and costs of workers by bringing in desperate poor immigrants- increasing their profits on both sides. At some stage the consumers are squeezed on both the demand and supply sides- cost of goods and income.

One way to reduce the number of children is by increasing the cost of parents keeping them by increasing their time in education- this also reduces the productivity of society. "Skills" development perhaps need to be transferred from the university level to the high school level- with less red tape and more focus on productivity- and the teachers at the school level need to have a skills mix that focuses on productivity.

Also as Burnham said Managerialism has meant that it is harder for people to switch jobs due to skills/ certification requirements- this also has an impact on productivity- creating more dependence.

The government has a role in coordinating the transition of children into productive roles in the nation and rewarding those commensurate with their contributions- smoothing out social factors that impede productivity- etc, etc.

The universal university system appears to have had both a positive and a negative impact in this transition- and currently has a fair dominance over the process perhaps creating a monopoly in the name of standardization and quality

I think that the Liberal Globalists on the left and the right are going to have to stop dragging their feet on population reduction and find a way. My preference is through birth control as I believe this causes the least suffering. As we waste time the problem and the solution becomes worse. We need to take control from those 'playing chicken with humanity'. We need to disenfranchise Liberal Globalists from power and insert those with a more responsible and practical vision. After all it is the (Locke) Liberal philosophy that has led to this disaster.

Canem Malum, exactly what disaster are you referring to? Nuclear war, a pandemic with 80% morbidity like Ebola, mass starvation that killed tens of millions as experienced in China and the USSR under communism, the Holocaust or a truly global world war?

As for the need to force people to stop having large families, it's already happening. Read the book Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson and you'll see strong evidence that human population growth is just 30 or 40 years away, after which human population numbers will decline significantly as is already happening in Japan, Italy, Russia and soon China.

CM,

Compulsory birth control ? For everybody or only for certain unter-gruppen ? Is your appointment as Minister for Compulsory Population Control imminent ?

Populations around the world are self-controlling and either static or declining in most of the developed world - Europe, the US, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Australia (if we abstract the effects of immigration). China's birth-rate has started to fall, despite the relaxation of the idiotic one-child policy (maybe singletons get used to be pampered little gods), so in a generation or so, its population will start to fall. India will be maybe a generation behind, and most of Africa maybe another generation behind that.

So you won't have to send in your CPC police just yet. Shelve those offender-relocation plans at Oodnadatta :)

The world produces enough food to feed ten billion people, but distributes it inequitably and inefficiently:

http://medium.com/@jeremyerdman/we-produce-enough-food-to-feed-10-billion-people-so-why-does-hunger-still-exist-8086d2657539#:~:text=However%2C%20global%20food%20production%20is,are%20at%207.6%20billion%20currently).

With seven billion people producing food enough for ten billion people, population is simply not the issue. And if Australia had nuclear-powered desalination plants all around its costs, pumping water inland, it could increase world food production by 10 %.

Joe