I'm with you, VK.

Perseus would not have read an officially documented pollutant industry report in his lifetime. The volume of pollutant emissions, just in this lucky country, is sufficient to cry "foul!"

And an increase in populations equals an increase in pollution!

Why breed when offspring are doomed to a life of misery and poverty where they are force-fed lethal toxins and air which has been privatised and polluted by grasping, dirty industries?

Ahh.... ignorance is bliss!

Or is Perseus merely concerned with his investments and his share portfolio?

Mirko Bagaric is to be commended for wanting to save the planet's downtrodden. But via cash?
A more constructive roadmap had been plotted 13 years ago by those he condemns. The article is a display of gormless ignorance, both in biology and recent history.

The stock of this planet's natural capital is being depleted, catering for 6.5 billion people - most evidently in areas of disenfranchised populations of high density. Yet, even as the needs of present numbers remain unfulfilled, population steadily increases at about 1.3% (doubling time a half-century).

Bagaric, in a cocoon of intemperance, can't see this monstrous hurdle. Why? It was universally recognised in 1994 that women everywhere should be emancipated - to make their own choice regarding pregnancy. Religious bigotry has fought hard against that: from the Vatican, and the fundamentalist Christian lobby in the US, the mad Mullahs also. Bigotry suggesting sperm, egg, zygote have superior rights to the lowly female incubator. Bagarac perhaps concurs?

Without such bigotry, the underdeveloped world might have a chance: every child wanted, with parents having adequate time and resources to devote to it. Better than now, where over-numerous children are confronted by ravages of water-borne disease, malnutrition, and warfare. Maybe a better chance for the woman-child now facing forced marriage, immaturely child-bearing with resultant fistula problems condemning her to be outcast.

If it weren't for ignorance, Bagarac would have addressed the underlying cause of global warming - our economic system's demand for everlasting growth. For two hundred years it has been expanding at an increasing rate. It depended on an escalating rate of resource use and waste accumulation. The IPCC declares the waste is affecting climate - believable to all but the most dedicated skeptics. Such climate change is going to disaffect, most of all, the most impoverished of the world's communities. Yet the economic system dictated for everyone demands continuing growth (4% or better).

If Bagarac could have put in a plug for a healthy no-growth economy, and stabilised human numbers, there would have been some logic in the article.

“I'd be fascinated to see how a green agenda of reducing population would be consistent with utilitarian ethics.”

Rhian, if there had been a concerted effort to halt the population explosion, starting off in the days of Thomas Malthus (around 1800) or perhaps even as late as the 1960s, then we would not be talking about the urgent need for population stabilization or reduction in 2007. Now it is just impossible to do it to a meaningful extent without severely draconian measures.

It is this unfettered human expansion that has fairly and squarely gone against the ethical theory of utilitarianism - achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

A true utilitarian would realise that the support mechanisms for a high quality of life are limited, or have a limited rate of resource provision before their renewability gets reduced.

A true utilitarian would be a total supporter of sustainability, and would cry out against the constant increase in population, that stresses the environment and resource base to the extent of greatly reducing or keeping miserably low the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people.

A true utilitarian would a true environmentalist.

I would also say that a true economist would be an arch environmentalist, and that any economist that follows the perverted notion of never-ending growth is nothing more than a very poor pseudoeconomist.

The same logic applies to politicians, and to all responsible citizens.

So, we can’t just point the finger and the greens for failing to indulge in a holistic perspective.

The notion of the greatest good for the greatest number must take into account the ongoing maintenance of that ‘good’. And this means that the ‘greatest number’ must be within the sustainable limits of the resource base and of the environment to absorb the overall impacts.

Those that have allowed the situation to get where it is today must have their ethics seriously questioned, including many who think of themselves as highly ethical. If we aren’t very strongly fighting for sustainability, then there is something seriously wrong with our ethics.

Mirko seems to be one of those people who thinks by writing. With respect to what he publishes at OLO I usually quite enjoy reading his ideas. However, sometimes I wonder why he chooses to publish his more asinine thoughts in as public a forum as this. He has an academic reputation to protect, and this truly crappy piece does nothing to enhance it.

As a libertarian, I often find myself agreeing with him, but in this article I think that he reveals himself as astonishingly ignorant about the actual environments ("sands") in which the developing world's populations live.

His gratuitous anti-Green diatribe only emphasises his prejudice against environmentalists. The Greens internationally have long been the only political party to have been simultaneously concerned both with global warming and the ongoing effects of environmental depradation on people in the developing world. A cursory examination of any official Greens website from around the world would readily attest to this, so one wonders why the good lawyer didn't bother to check his facts - even cursorily.

I think Mirko ought to exercise a little more discretion in publishing his more erratic thoughts in public forums such as this - else his professional credibility must surely be brought into question.

Plerdsus for Prime Minister!
“What needs to be done is that aid to third world countries must be linked to population control, and countries that refuse to limit their population should be refused all aid, both government and private”

And Ludwig & Colinsett for front-bench ministers.

Someone mentioned earlier Bono & Bod Geldoff ( leading lights associated with the aid bandwagon).Perhaps we can learn more from watching the antics of these paragons of charity than we can by listening to their sermons. While lecturing the west about the need to share & give, Bono travels the world like a jetsetter, has expensive housing ( how disproportionate must be his consumption & contribution to green house gasses) & if recent reports in the press are to be believed , avoids paying tax big time .While Geldoff, again if the news reports are to believed, has trouble sharing royalties with his former band members

Mirko certainly is a thought-provoking writer. He says things I find really insightful, & others that are completely off-the-chart loopy. But that's what makes him interesting. How boring (& un-realistic) it would be if there was only ONE point of view that was the "defining point of view" that was shared by all "smart" people (which is the definition of PC). Keep up the good work OLO.

His point about abortion & the much touted concern for the "rights of future generations" is an interesting one.

Re Africa. Never-ending aid is just sending good money after bad. The amount sent already should have been more than sufficient to eradicate their poverty troubles. Instead it has made a privileged few obscenely rich, swelled thousands of swiss accounts & funded countless wars. I refuse to fund more of that. The only way it will be used wisely is if the west oversees it. But of course that would be 'racist' (even though western countries are the most multicultural, multi-coloured & tolerant in the world, but that's another story).

Re population control in Africa, that will never happen unless there is first responsible government & political stablity there. Don't hold your breath. But given that rational economic growth theorists and the greens both want Africa to rein in their populations, who knows?

Personally, not concerned over CO2 levels. For a start, don't believe the global warming hype (0.7C rise in the last 150 years is the 'crisis'). What's much more concerning is massive falls in biodiversity and the pollution issue. The west will fix the latter & like everything else, we will export our clean technology to the rest of the world to solve that one. But biodiversity lost can never be regained. That's what we need to focus on.

Absolutely, Horus. Always sceptical of the very wealthy moralisers. It's a brilliant public relations exercise for them. Money can't buy that kind of publicity. When they start to give their millions away, like Gates, that's when I'll listen to them. Until then, they can +&^%$ off.