Pericles, how turbulent and shifting are your ways!

For the majority of this thread you have been arguing:-
>>Presenting a catchy slogan, "Resources / population = lifestyle!" as an accepted fact, when it is patently false, is lazy thinking, and progresses the discussion not at all.<<

Now your argument has shifted to:-

>>Blind Freddie can see that at some point consumption will exceed production.<<

This statement is entirely consistent with my previous “slogan” that you had so much difficulty with. Thanks for writing my new placard for me! ;-) It also allows a variety of interesting images. I’m just confused as to how you hold “patently false” and “obvious” together in the one brain?

Now, as to our strategy — peak oil and overpopulation campaigning has been largely internet driven, and has very quickly informed many citizens and politicians of the risks to civilization itself by sharing scientifically valid information on the net!

The internet is a very powerful tool, storing data in all it’s glorious and frightening truth, and does this amazing thing… it informs people. Imagine that? Sharing scientific truth can actually change {{{some}}} people’s minds — “who wooda thunk it?”

Politicians then read it, and we’ve changed the world.

EG: Roscoe Bartlett became a hard corps peak oil campaigner after reading www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net — he has quoted that site in Congress many times. There is now a Roscoe driven US inquiry.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/people/roscoe_bartlett

Andrew McNamara of Queensland Labor has nearly finished a Queensland state inquiry.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/people/andrew_mcnamara
The internet can change the world. Don’t bag it till you’ve tried it, unless you are now my campaign manager as well as my copywriter? ;-)

Finally we come to policy. What are we to DO about it?
Well, apart from all your philosophical ranting about how hard this is, there are measures governments can take to mitigate population growth. EG: Kerala district in India now has a stable population by providing women with education and career opportunities, family planning services, and security in retirement so that children are not viewed as “superannuation”.

Policy documents — right hand column under media releases.
http://www.population.org.au/

eclipse, now you are simply being obtuse.

I made it very clear, so that blind Freddie could also understand it, that the puerile slogan "Resources / population = lifestyle!" - complete with its pathetic plea for attention, the exclamation mark - is unsupportable in logic. There is no direct correlation between the elements that can be sustained under any examination, since both ends of the spectrum are impossible, i.e. when you substitute 1 or infinity for the population variable, the equation collapses.

So you are left with a meaningless slogan. Empty. Proving nothing.

If you go into battle with a banner that simply says "I'm right, follow me", your troops will start deserting you as soon as the going gets tough.

There is absolutely no contradiction in my position on this, which is the logical and supportable statement that at some point in time, we will run out of resources. This is actually consistent with a change in either major variable, population or resources.

Now, instead of lecturing me on generalizations about the internet, answer the question that I now place in front of you for the third time:

"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?"

Peri-cleese,

Australia's population capacity is 23 million, if we get all the environmental sustainability factors right.

In the meantime we are approaching a palpable populational nexus as evidenced in Sydney. It is irrelevant whether you even notice this or the subsequent outcomes as this year unfolds, because 5 million people in Sydney WILL. And mate, they have power that you clearly do not have a clue about .... background noise indeed! The Desals gone and the Funnel is soon to follow. That is a kick in your guts and you haven't even noticed. Brain dead?

So take a pill, keep watching ..... and mop up that foam around your mouth! You are developing a definite Y chromosome there somewhere.

Now Pericles,
FORMULA
You’re a very naughty boy. I’m not that attached to my formula, I’m really not — but you’re being deliberately obtuse. You don’t actually read the posts on this forum do you? I’ve already explained in great depth the criteria for the formula, “all things being equal”. Remember that? No-one is talking about plugging in 1 or infinity. You’re being pedantic and silly, and failing basic comprehension. If you want to use that formula outside it’s criteria, that neither disproves the concept or adds credibility to your semantic games.

You wouldn’t apply the hypotenuse rule to a circle, would you?

INTERNATIONAL POLICIES
As to me, a mere campaigner solving all the world’s problems at once… well I’ve already asked you to download the SPA policy statement at www.population.org.au but you will not. (Sigh).

Now I can see your agenda — get me to focus on Australian solutions and then equate me with a racist. You have no evidence of this, and no right to call me one until such time as I give grounds for this! But here goes, opening up for your “devastating blow” to my case. (Laughs).

After peak oil, globalisation will collapse and economies will have to become far more local. So will population solutions. It’s as simple as this — the nations that comply with population policy apply it — giving financial incentives for smaller families and whatever else develops domestically. Internationally, those complying nations then limit immigration from nations that do not comply. If those nations want to test Liebig’s law, they can do so in their own backyard! We should not enable catastrophe. This is neither racist nor nationalistic, just common sense.

Not all nations will sign up to population policy, and so those that do not can live with the consequences of their own foolishness. It sounds harsh, but if we are to avert a worldwide calamity we must do so by staying ‘intact’ ourselves. We cannot help others if we have collapsed ourselves

It isn't quite that simple, eclipse.

Your claim that your slogan works "all things being equal" is a nonsense when the supposed result of the equation is "lifestyle". If you gave it more than a millisecond of thought, you would realize this.

But I now see that you claim to be "not that attached to my formula, I’m really not". Sensible move.

But to continue to claim that its patent fallibility "neither disproves the concept or adds credibility to your semantic games" is itself a good illustration of your refusal to accept the blindingly obvious.

>>Now I can see your agenda — get me to focus on Australian solutions and then equate me with a racist.<<

Your words, not mine.

What you now appear to be saying - and feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted - is that in default of being able to save the world from ecological disaster, we (Australia) need to "[stay] ‘intact’ ourselves".

OK, so if it isn't racism, it is a blinkered version of extreme parochialism. Have you given one second of thought to the implications of cutting Australia off from the rest of the world in this fashion?

But you don't ever think in terms of consequences, do you?

If it doesn't make a simple-minded slogan to fit on a placard, you don't want to know.

Two points from recent posts.

Pericles* "Have you given one second of thought to the implications of cutting Australia off from the rest of the world in this fashion?"

Keeping Australia to an ecologically sustainable 23 million population would strengthen it above and beyond what would be achievable with greater populations. This is because of the social instabilities and resource shortages inflicted by overcrowding in an overpopulated scenario.
Australia would be able to defend its self better and EXCHANGE people, ideas and trade across the globe far better as an ecologically sustainable entity than as a teetering economic powerhouse full of tensions and subverted ALP style loyalties.
This would in NO WAY shut us off from the rest of the world in any meaningful sense.

Eclipse* "We cannot help others if we have collapsed ourselves "

Actually we can at least in a short term sense. A phoenix scenario exists where in a peak oil collapse of law and order, Australia is subsumed by stronger and fitter nations or individuals. Its collapse will then certainly help others in a short term sense. Not pretty but worth noting as an antibody against those who want to overcrowd our cities with ensuing dissent, weakness, disloyalty and division.

All the more reason to develop the most robust, ecologically sustainable posture.
Such a posture does not rule out adequate military budgets for deterence.