You are still missing the point. If we don't get world population and therefore world overuse of resources down, then those people are going to starve anyway. Neither they nor us will have any choice in the matter.

vk3

It is yourself and col who seem to be missing the point re population. If there is any fraud being perpetrated it is the lie of society disintegrating without population growth. Where is the evidence for a collapse of living standards if the population declines? In the case of the plague in Europe, the result was peace and prosperity for the common man and the death of feudalism. Perhaps population growth advocates should look at the feudal power structures in parts of the world where fecundity and overpopulation are rife, before lamenting the developed world's reluctance to jump into the same oblivion. At least people in the developed world dont feel compelled to sell their kids into slavery in order to pay off a few debts.

Fester “It is yourself and col who seem to be missing the point re population. If there is any fraud being perpetrated it is the lie of society disintegrating without population growth.”

I would normally thank people for putting words in my mouth, it saves me the bother of doing it myself, except

To quote my post exactly “Oh you might cause a hiccup in economic terms with a contraction of demand,” is a statement which in no way suggests

“social disintegration” as an outcome of population decline or containment (the alternatives to “population growth”)’,

So I will accept, your apology and your climbdown that I “Lied” about anything.

As for the general topic of “population explosions”. The fallacy that undeveloped nations are somehow less responsible for population growth than developed nations is a complete nonsense. We are all on one planet. Undeveloped nations have not been held back by developed nations neither now nor in the recent past.
Undeveloped nations have benefited from the energy and innovation of disease control systems created by developed nations and improved / more productive crops researched by developed nations etc. but undeveloped nations are no longer colonies, they are autonomous states and “population control” is their responsibility, the same way population control is the responsibility of developed nations.

The same should apply and is the patent defect in Kyoto.

As for “The challenge is for the economists in the rich nations to devise a suitable model to sustain negative growth, without causing too great a depression.”

Economists have never “devised” anything.
They merely theorize, measure and attempt, crudely, to rationalize the social impact of what others “devise”; where “others” are the trillions of transactions which build up to produce a national economy and international trade.

By the time economists get around to understanding what is going on it will be too late. The Stern Report and like are merely the early 21st century rehash of Malthus's 19th century anxieties.

No wonder Carlyle called economics the “dismal science”, especially when it is really an “art”.

The more we give ,the more the population problem worsens.No none has yet mentioned birth control as the solution to our woes.Too many poeple cheapens human endeavour and thus we will continue to see our jobs exported to third world depravity.There is no nobility in suffering.

As energy and resources become scarcer due to over population,so will our living standards diminish.The equation is very simple and in a finite world,we have ignored it at our peril.

PS Col,I purposely did not read other comments till now.Great minds perhaps?

Perhaps this is a question about the value of human labour, rather than a question about population. The developed world has benefited from the plight of the developing world. The wealth we enjoy, which we consider crucial for creating the mental / social space required to discover and innovate, is largely due to the fact that we are permitted to exploit developing nations. This is not an "artistic" description of reality, this is a scientific fact. You cannot have "more" without denying someone else. Having said that, we need to also look at cultural beliefs and associations to understand the exact nature of the problem (and lets not take for granted that some people suggest that there is no problem). Some people need "less" in order to create, survive etc. Some people may even deteriorate if given "too much". There is room for scientific analysis in this discussion, for understanding of human behaviour, health and environment. But it is not a simple equation.