Pericles, we've already been right through this whole conversation!
Go back and READ IT!

No, don't bother... I know you won't. I'll have to rehash it here for you.

1/ Demographic transition in first world countries = lower birthrates.
Indeed, half the world seems to have already stabilized. The other half breeds like rabbits, making up for this 'stability'. I have already discussed the means by which this occurs, you are proving exactly nothing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

2/ UN stats argue that population will stabilize at 9 billion because of WORLDWIDE DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION! (IE: Worldwide wealth, peace, and stability! LOL!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Population_projections

3/ Peak oil will bankrupt the first world and shatter the 3rd world.
This means there is no chance of demographic transition, the mysterious force you seem to be unable to name even though this thread has already discussed all this!

4/ Market forces will only react to peak oil price signals, and by then it is too late. (Hirsch).
Sorry Pericles, the onus seems to be back on government's to prepare for peak oil and overpopulation.

Can I suggest re-reading the links above until the terms "Demographic Transition" and "overpopulation" actually stick?

You keep exhorting me to read your sources eclipse, but I wonder whether you actually read them yourself. Wikipedia clearly states:

"Overpopulation is not merely an imbalance between the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive, or a ratio of population over resources."

There goes "Resources / population = lifestyle!" Exclamation mark and all.

"About half the world lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility, and population growth in those countries is due to immigration."

Poor countries are exporting their surplus to the rich countries, who are at sub-replacement levels. We seem at least to agree on this point.

You need to make up your mind at some stage whether you would like the poor countries to stop doing this, or get the rich countries to breed faster. Which is it to be?

What you cannot do, however, is to conflate the two concepts into one.

>>Peak oil will bankrupt the first world and shatter the 3rd world.<<

No, we will find alternative energy sources. That is the way it has been in the past, and will continue to be in the future. In any event, it has little or nothing to do with the first problem, which is - in your own estimation - whether we continue to allow the poorer countries to export their surplus population.

>>Market forces will only react to peak oil price signals, and by then it is too late. (Hirsch).<<

I disagree. Hirsch has made a name for himself using the same kind of emotive language that the Club of Rome employed back in the seventies. Your take on Limits to Growth was:

>>They ran a variety of models, some of which did not turn out exactly as they predicted, and neither does that disprove their main thesis!<<

(That bloody exclamation mark again.)

So let me put it to you that while Hirsch may not eventually be disproved in his main thesis (which is that the concept of peak oil needs to be addressed), his timeline, like that of the Club, is both erroneous and grossly over-dramatized.

Pericles,
Let me put it to you that you either seem to delight in obfuscation and misdirection, or you cannot read!

I make a point, you either ‘call names’ or take the conversation somewhere else and entirely dodge the question, and then call names some more. This is really repetitive and dull.

1/ You completely misquote Wikipedia!
“Overpopulation is not a function of the number or density of the individuals, but rather the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive. In other words, it is a ratio: population over resources. If a given environment has a population of 10, but there is food and drinking water enough for only 9 people, then that environment is overpopulated, while if the population is 100 individuals but there are food and water enough for 200, then it is not overpopulated.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Did you read that bit Peeeerricleeeeeeees?

IT IS A RATIO!

Let’s try your quote in context.

“Overpopulation is not merely an imbalance between the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive, or a ratio of population over resources. This is because such an imbalance may be caused by any other number of factors such as bad governance, war, injustice and exploitation, etc. When other such factors come into play in a certain locale, and population density cannot be shown to be the major cause, overpopulation cannot be conclusively said to occur.”

So Pericles, this quote highlights the need for an “All things being equal” clause. How is a war “equal”, Pericles? You’ve been very naughty quoting out of context, and should tell your mummy and daddy because you need a spanking. Now write this down 100 times… “I must not quote out of context”. You naughty boy! We’re all onto you.

2/ Regarding your comments on Hirsch and immigration. There’s only one answer. “Sticks and stones may break my bones”. In other words, please resist the urge to write until you have engaged your brain. Your immigration comment ignores “Liebig’s Law”, “The Precautionary Principle”, the UCS and MA.

Insults + nothing substantial = trolling

Nice try, eclipse, but unconvincing.

I stand accused of... "obfuscation and misdirection... you either ‘call names’ or take the conversation somewhere else and entirely dodge the question"

Let's take a break from all this peripheral backchat, and get to the main game.

There is now a significant backlog of direct questions that you have failed to answer.

The list so far is:

>>Let us postulate for a moment that your David Pimentel is correct, and that to survive in comfort we need to target a maximum population of 2 billion. What can bring about this change?<<

No response.

>>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 [depopulation] 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?<<

No response.

>>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?<<

No response.

>>Poor countries are exporting their surplus to the rich countries, who are at sub-replacement levels. We seem at least to agree on this point. You need to make up your mind at some stage whether you would like the poor countries to stop doing this, or get the rich countries to breed faster. Which is it to be?<<

No response.

So let's have less of this nonsense about dodging the question and calling names. To set me right, all you need to do is answer the above simple questions.

The time for scouring the net for quotes to support your position is over. You will always find some, since that is the nature of the web and the wonder of Google.

But just answer some direct questions for a change, and we can start a proper discussion.

Awww, poor wittle Pewicwees doesn’t like it when he got caught out lying.

You do not “stand accused” of anything Pericles, you were proved beyond reasonable doubt of BLATANTLY misquoting wikipedia.

As to your childish repetition of the abovementioned ‘avoidance strategy’ by accusing me of not answering your questions, I already have. You just can’t read.

This is my first request that you actually read the SPA policy document, only 4 pages long, whose 21 Recommendations answers ALL of your specific “finished white paper” style questions.

>>> 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).<<<

In other words, Jenny Goldie's article aimed to start the public discussion that we need to DO something about overpopulation. SPA has proposed what to do, but the finer details might evolve with public debate. You seem to want ironclad details before really agreeing with the immediate need for population policy in the first place! D’uh!

Now we move onto the second time I answer your pedantic questions — just a means to distract from the actual conversation — which is the NEED for public debate on population policy.

>>> 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/ <<<

Don’t accuse me of avoiding your questions when you will not read the answers I give you. I mean, this whole thread is in response to Jenny Goldie, the President of SPA — and you won’t even read her policy statement when asked to on a number of occasions.

Lastly, apologise to this forum for so blatantly misquoting wikipedia you troll!

China has already sucessfully implemented population control policy, Pericles. Thanks for bring it up.

China's recognition of the problem of using population growth to drive economic growth, forced it to implement the so called "one child policy". Often portrayed by western sensationalist media as a draconian evil foisted onto the chinese, the population strategy of China has been very successful. If the most populated nation on earth can do it then I'm sure the U.S.A, Indonesia etc can.

FYI, Chinese Population Policy:

Policy incentives

salary bonus (urban)
bigger land allocation (rural)
extended maternity leave
paid medical and hospital expenses
priority access to housing, employment and schooling for the child

Disobeying the policy

withdrawal of family allowance and medical benefits
fines (even against everyone in the village or town)
demotion or discharge from a government job

Exceptions to the rule

membership of a minority ethnic group (can be allowed two or even more children)
having a first child with a disability that is likely to result in inability to work
pregnancy after adopting a child
risk of 'losing the family line' without a second child (the first child being a girl)
rural families with 'real difficulties' (all children so far being girls)

http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/china/virtual/lesson/gilligan.htm

With a history of floods and famine China is intimately aware of unchecked population growth.

A previous poster questioned implementing population control at all because we don't know what the upper limit to population is. Another way of saying, keep growing until we have problems. This a bit like saying, keep smoking until you get cancer then hope for a cure.

There are really no rational scientific arguments against the logic of stabilising, then gradually reducing human populations (there are however irrational, economic ones, even religious ones). As Pericles has pointed out, it is a question of politics. We do not have an international political/legal system that can deal with long term environmental issues.

Robert Hirsch wrote in the SAIC document, that the risks of not implementing early mitigation strategies to peak oil were asymmetrical to doing so. This applies to ALL environmental and demographic issues.