Nicely put, xist.

There is a tendency on most threads for barrow-pushers to become overheated whenever anyone questions their deep insights and profound wisdom. This is no exception.

There must be some kind of warm glow that comes from regurgitating tired and trite slogans of the utmost generality. I suppose it does allow them to ignore any form of practical reality.

Occasionally there is a brief dip below the surface. I liked Thermoman's contribution:

>>you, like the property developers who are running this country and most of the western world, want to see all the places which today consist of only a few fibro shacks turned into new Surfers Paradises<<

It is difficult to actually discern any form of logic, but he gives a clue with...

>>Surfer's Paradise was a much better place in 1955, with a few fibro shacks, than it is today<<

This is the solution, apparently. What isn't even attempted is the "how". How are we supposed to persuade the 90% plus of the Australian population that they need to tear down their McMansions, and put up fibro shacks?

And become vegetarian at the same time, according to tubley.

Sounds fun.

But even if we could stretch our imagination to this point, how do we persuade China, India, Indonesia etc. that they should follow our example?

Wouldn't they all simply say "goody", and send a few million or so of their people to settle here? If we're all living in fibro shacks, we wouldn't put up much of a fight, I suspect.

There simply ain't a lot we can do about it. Talk of “humanely apply[ing] family planning laws through the UN ” (thank you, eclipse) is pure dope-thinking . Sounds great when you're high, but has as much basis in reality as Superman and Green Lantern.

In the final analysis, the world will balance its population to a point where it is sustainable. Whether this includes the survival of the human race is frankly doubtful.

It might just be the evidence needed to finally prove Darwin right. Intelligently design your way out of this, God.

Fibro shacks had Asbestos, don't tell me we haven't improved. The Club of Rome didn't even release their calculations until 2 years after their beat up (I wonder what they were hiding?). Paul Erlich predicted complete collapse in India within e few years, not a century.

And Ludwig is on record of discouraging innovation for the express purpose of bringing the population "day of reckoning" closer. He would sacrifice a positive contribution on the alter of his ideology. Eclipse just wants to petition disident views off the blog and none of you seem too reluctant to dump abuse on an opposing view.

And as your soulmate, Mugabe has demonstrated in Zimbabwe, once again, the primary cause of starvation and poverty is bad government with zero respect for law, democracy or the rights and liberties of their own people.

The starvation in Darfur is not caused by excess population but by rogue governance. The starvation in North Korea is not caused by excess population but by by an extraordinary perversion of the notion of egalitarianism, with a huge dose of executive narcissism. Zimbabwe was once the bread bowl of Africa but is now a basket case as a direct result of tyranny, abuse of power and destruction of property rights.

And the longer and louder that ill-informed under performers in the developed countries provide these failed administrations with the big population excuse, the longer they remain in power and the worse their abuses become.

You people are nothing more than a distraction to the body of intellectual discourse. And your distraction is actively killing people, and causing incredible suffering, right now, all over the world. Shame on you.

So now Pericles believes that humanity is in trouble if we keep population growth… thank you for that Pericles. Welcome to the club. As to possible solutions, your pessimism may or may not be justified. It is true that we have never seen international co-operation on this scale — but there is always a first time. And Australia can make laws that at least protect our continent from overpopulation by tackling immigration quotas and letting our economic disincentives take their natural course.

Perseus — I know sidetracking into irrelevancies can appear like a good way to fill up a page with words, but really… go back to high school and do English 101. You need to learn how to answer the question if you are going to pass the exam! This essay was not regarding the corruption and stupidity of tin pot dictators but, surprise surprise, actually concerns the inevitable dilemmas of worldwide overpopulation. Try using a few comprehension skills if you ever care to actually join this conversation.

“And Ludwig is on record of discouraging innovation for the express purpose of bringing the population "day of reckoning" closer.”

Perseus, produce the evidence that is ‘on the record’. Quote whatever it is that has led you to this absurd conclusion.

Come on, let’s get down to the nitty gritty of who is really the “distraction to the body of intellectual discourse” on this forum.

eclipse, if you had actually read any of my posts instead of skimming over them and making half-baked assumptions, you will notice that I have never disagreed with the fact that the earth can only sustain a finite number of people.

My disagreement with your position is that you claim to know what that number is, and that instead of evidence, you present slogans.

Unfortunately, your reaction is always to deflect, rather than respond, and the points you make are those of a high school debating team - all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, ready to change the world.

"It is true that we have never seen international co-operation on this scale — but there is always a first time"

This is a classic example. If a tenth grade debater put this forward, they would be laughed off the dais. If the only hope you have of achieving something is because it has never been achieved before, you are lost before you have begun.

What incentives do you consider would be helpful in persuading i) the USA ii) Iraq iii) Nigeria iv) Indonesia and v) China to join your programme? What would be your fallback position if some, or none, came to the party? Do you believe that i) bribery or ii) threats would be more effective in getting your message across?

But wait. I suspect there is a far simpler objective here.

>>And Australia can make laws that at least protect our continent from overpopulation by tackling immigration quotas<<

Cards on the table. You aren't that concerned about the rest of the world, are you? You just want those nasty foreigners to stop coming here so that we can go back to nature..

Ok, at least we can now be honest with each other. But my question still remains, albeit on a smaller scale.

What laws do you propose the government brings in to realize your dream of an Australia that contains a limited number of people? What is that number, how would you propose to reach it, and what would you recommend we do with those who dissent?

Peri-cleese,

...."What laws do you propose the government brings in to realize your dream of an Australia that contains a limited number of people? What is that number, how would you propose to reach it, and what would you recommend we do with those who dissent?"

Australia is a desert Island with a maximum population of about 23 million. Nearly all of them will be stuffed into the major capital cities and their hinterlands because immigration policy favours a kind of capitalism that will not tolerate being stuck in country town backwaters. The overcrowding problems of gridlock, rage and lack of services plus the impossibility of kickstarting expensive infrastructures is already starting to show in immigration central (Sydney) where inveterate problems like, falling house prices, tunnel funnels, hospital bungles and desal debacles are on a steep increase.
Morris Dilemma backflips on critical growth issues for Sydney highlight this trend succinctly enough.

All up, the government won't have to pass any laws to stop overcrowding. Immigrants, essentially investors, are already shunning Sydney as seen in falling house prices and citizens are clearly against low class migrants, the ghettos proposed to house them and the worsening load they place on city services.

This problem is also evident in the other capitals and will worsen in them as well.

So, you don't have to do anything with dissenters. They will have to invest in their feet and move somewhere where their money can get maximum returns. I can assure you that at a population of 23 million, that will be nowhere in desert island Australia. There will be no capital untouched by overcrowding and social strife left to go to. Except for the mining sector and the odd tourist location that hasn't been destroyed by congestion and pollution, there will be better opportunities in neighbouring countries like NZ for example which has a carrying capacity of about 60 million in line with other islands like Japan and Britain in similar latitudes.