Men want one thing from many women and women want many things from one man.

Put another way men want sex and women want children.

Women learn this very early and men probably only after their second divorce. In an ovverwhelming majority of cases men assent to have children just to keep their partner and keep her content. Only an idiot or conspirator would have the gaul to ask for peer-reviewed-proof!

Its just the way nature ensures survival-of-the-fittest within the species. If women were dumb-animals they wouldn’t care about the consequences. But they aren’t and they MUST. The time for survival-of-the-fittest, except in technology, is OVER.

At a time when new generations are merely evolvng to obese morons, we all must forego certain rights and privileges in order for civilisation to survive the next 20 years over PEAKOIL and climate changes.

To say that YOUR children are more important than anyone elses and to say that your right to have more than one child is incontrovertable, is as big a monstrosity as Adolph Hitler saying Germans were the master-race.

As petrol rises towards the magical 5$/litre, having more than one-child-per-individual-woman will no longer be a sacred cow. There will be consequences for women. The overwhelming mood of people on this planet is that we have the technology to avert a population meltdown. We can continue to progress. Eschewing a number of heretofore basic rights, some for men, some for women, is long overdue.

For the UN to continue espousing controversial carbon emissions targets and ignore the implications of the increased carbon footprint of EVERY child born is as unsustainable as the human habits they are trying to curb.

Its time the UN got a bit braver IMO.

BTW in developing nations: for all the modernisation of Indian women, its population is growing unsustainably, while China’s with its one child per woman policy is stabilising and prospering. Chinese women are NOT complaining. To wit, paying SOME women more, making then independent like in India isn’t solving and won’t solve unsustainable growth. Only a one child per individual women policy will.

By thirty-one-thirty A.D., Humans had finally reached the other planets of our solar system. Almost at once there followed the discovery of hyper-drive, through which the speed of light was greatly surpassed. At last, the colonization of space bagan. But on the planet that was their nursery, a new but ancient confrontation was emerging..

Adams:What’s the ‘Castle’ Handsome?

Handsome: Castle!Castle!Castle! It’s an obsolete term, I’m afraid, once used to describe the elementary basis of the subconscious mind.

Adams:Monsters from the Castle . . . Monsters from thesubconscious. Of course! That’s what KAEP meant. The big machines..powered by 8000 cubic miles of underground oil..enough power for creative geniuses operating almost to remote control.

Handsome:To what purpose?

Adams:Like you, Humans forgot their own greed and subconscious hate and lust for sex&destruction

Handsome:The beast. The mindless primitive. Even we Humans must have evolved from that beginning.

Adams:And so those mindless beasts had access to OIL, a fuel that they THOUGHT could never shut down. But it did! And every woman on the planet felt the urge to have baby-bonused-children. And politictians their immigrant power. The thermodynamic population system became exponential, the energy-input suddenly declined by 70% and the chaotic grip of thermodynamic-decay commenced as the second-law-of-thermodynamics unravelled the house-of-cards called 20th-century-civilisation.
The secret devils in every one was set free to loot and road-rage and take revenge and kill!

Handsome:My poor Humans! After eighty years of shining sanity, they could hardly have understood what power was destroying them. All very convincing but for one obvious fallacy. The last human war was in 1940,and not everyone died.

Adams:Your mind refuses to face the conclusion.
That thing out there . . . it’s you, it wants OIL for 9 billion people and there is none.

Handsome: You’re insane!

Adams: You think you're immune? We are all thermodynamic machines and respond to energy input levels. ENDPOINTS Handsome. In 1900before OIL there were 2 billion and soon the BEAST will make it 2 billion again. 6 billion will DIEOFF.

(The monster tears down the door)

Handsome:Don’t let it in, Pentagon! Stop it! Kill it!

“BTW, I would suggest that before criticising Simon, you actually go and read what he had to say.” (Wizofaus). Have done that years ago, but visited the website.

Unchanged fundamentals. And I also suggest it be visited by those who have not already done so. Amazing stuff – aggressive erudition built upon foundations of biology and mathematics which are at schoolboy-howler standard. Confidence in his dismissive concept of the finite would need more faith in religion than knowledge of maths. He is indeed leaning towards infinity.

There is a high probability that this planet will not be tested in supporting 9 billion people. For quite a number of reasons the death rate might increase until well above the birth rate. Such dying, as occurred during the Black Death, could itself foster procreation – beginning a spiral in which death will predominate until depopulation matches numbers to circumstance. We are in the process of an interesting experiment. I do not subscribe to Julian Simon’s ratbaggery and enthusiasm for testing this experiment to its limits.

The assistance of technology is needed. But there is a limit beyond which it can't squeeze more from environmental capacity. This point has already been over-stepped.

Society needs to take responsibility for its own fecundity – unlike plague mice and lemmings. Minimising unavoidable problems is the best we can do. Things are going to be tough. The population supertanker can not be turned around in an instant. Putting on reverse thrust now might soften the iceberg-bump in the near future

Dismissing the finite is only for the fundamentalists while we live on a finite planet. Immediate assistance, encouragement, education is needed for women in this direction. And males, have a vasectomy earlier rather than later – you are not rabbits (are you?).

In the words of that immortal gold miner played by Lee Marvin - 'I'll double that'.

CountryGal,

You've pretty much got it right. However;

There's no need to means-test this. A frugal family with a high income can leave a lower ecological footprint than a low income family who's into disposable plastics.

The general principle is to incorporate external costs internally to ensure that each and every good or service includes the public as well as private production costs. Difficult to do, and imperfect, I am sure but also quite necessary.

The pitter patter of not so tiny carbon footprints, place a substantial impact upon the environment, not only in the ubiquitous disposable nappies, but in the SUV's that parents inevitably buy, and the toys, cloths, etc, etc, etc, etc. So these sweet little feet are already have a huge impact upon the environment - we won't even go there for the financial impact children have in child welfare upon the economy. I think the old adage of two children only is more than enough children for any family to raise with the extra demands on schooling, sports etc.

http://snazzybum.freehostia.com/Carbon_Footprint.html

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20071706-16008.html
These are just a couple of websites showing the affects of disposable nappies.

Cloth Nappies, 570kg, purchase cost 360 pound, nil landfill cost, cost to tax payer none


Disposable Nappies, 650Kg, puchase cost 1000 pounds, 1000 tonnes to landfill, cost to taxpayer 38 pound per baby