Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahah haaaaaaaaah haaaaa haahaahahaahaah

Just what this rather bland discussion needed, some real goose to liven it up a bit.

Thanks for that Foundy. Good on ya.

.
Insider, yes Saul is a paid man. And therein lies his dilemma – espouse what his employer and associates want to hear – growth, growth and more growth. Or say what OLO respondents very clearly and predominantly want – limits to human expansion.

If someone knows Mr Eslake could they please ask him to respond?

I have a limited grasp of the jargon used when describing macro economics but I can see that the driving forces, banks, government politicians and probably multinational company directors must have no children, or if they have, care nothing for their future. They obviously are blind to what is happening under their noses or they are sticking their heads in the sand.

If MR Eslake is a free agent can he please set the record straight for it definitely appears he is a "paid man" trying to find excuses to prop up a terminal economic model sponsored by the banks to the detriment of the society and environment.

I may be a little naive but unless we start to do something pretty quickly about the numbers of people and mindless consumption we are all sunk.

I guess that is the end of the discussion. Such a rational, well thought out and elloquently worded positive thought provoking retort leaves me speechless.

I can see I am guzumped by a wordsmith of astounding intellect and composure worthy of note.

Keep up the good work people.

Hi GuyV, I don't know why he bothers to stick around. He has obviously run out of cogent arguments.

I would like to hear some good argument as to why the earth, which has limited resources, is going to survive the current mad dash to dig up everything and convert it into consumer products for the 12 billion people who will inhabit the earth half way through the current century. Who is going to feed this lot? The way farming in Australia is going, we are going to be lucky to have enough farmers left tofeed ourselves.

"a) 'Ludwig', asking for limits to human expansion is rather comical coming from a man of your stature!”

C’mawwwn foundation, if you are going to bother to respond, how about telling us what your concerns are in a sensible and logical manner.

Thank you VK3AUU and Ludwig,

I cannot imagine why people are so against a reduction in the world population. Blind Freddy can see we are way over budget in consumption. I guess it is also like horses and grass, replaced by cars, oil and coal but you can still get both previous items, just not economical at transport. The stakeholders in oil and coal are terrified they will lose their market share, just like wagon builders and saddlers. Nuclear is transferring energy derived from coal and oil in one place to another, more convenient place, in a smaller lump so why are we continuing to raise the population?

We CAN continue on this path but, like the Concorde, you consume an order of magnitude more energy for the same amount of amenity. Surely we can reduce our population and give everyone a far better quality of life while continuing the superb technical advancement we enjoy. Why do economists keep banging the drum that we must have growth? They may be correct to a point but this has NOTHING to do with population. It has to do with some few stakeholders who have the ear, and probably control, of the government and the Mr. Eslake's.

How do we positive thinking and future concerned people get the ear of the people that matter? I guess we have to smack them between the eyes with some catastrophe at home before they wake up. We have a water catastrophe happening in Queensland but it is still not enough to make our silly, supposedly "smart state", government stop encouraging people to come to this State.

I ask you all, WHO DO WE TALK TO??