Yabby, I don't disagree with your point, but I'm not sure that article is the best evidence: after all the Ebola virus is part of the Earth's biodiversity. Further, the worst disease breakouts that history has ever seen occurred with much lower populations than today.
Biodiversity is obviously important, but ultimately as a species we do have to look after own first and foremost: after all, that's what billions of years of natural selection has programmed all species to do. The danger is believing that we're somehow capable of controlling and taking over the Earth's entire biosphere. One day we might be, but we're a long way off it yet, and worse, even if we were able to kill off every other species on the planet and survive ourselves on 100% synthetic food, I don't think it would a planet much worth living on.

Wizofaus / dnicholson wrote the following (above) “but ultimately as a species we do have to look after own first and foremost: after all”

On the “Marketing Global; Warming” thread he wrote

“Col, yes, because if we don't place modest restrictions on the amount of CO2 emissions we emit now, then we place enormous restrictions on future generations who will not have the freedom to enjoy the advantages of the temperate climate and manageable sea-levels that we have now.”

I doubt it is only me who can see the obvious contradiction of these two statements.

But to assist those who might miss it, on the one hand we “individuals” have to surrender our freedoms to comply with some dubious theory of “global warming” because the likes of Gore and the IPCC demand so,

Whereas

According to wizofaus/dnicholson we, as homo-sapiens are fully entitled to “look after own first and foremost, after all”

My response

I consider me looking after my “own”, first and foremost as an individual, is far more important than pondering if the species will survive.

Then “The danger is believing that we're somehow capable of controlling and taking over the Earth's entire biosphere”

So what is the IPCC “climate science agenda” all about if it is not about

“believing that we're somehow capable of controlling and taking over the Earth's entire biosphere”

More self “contradiction”!

Many find my views contentious, I make no apology for that. My views support the individual and see "government" as the servant of the individual.

At least I am consistent.

Lack of consistency leave you exposed as a dual personality writing both for and against the "common good" ("global warming" versus "sustainable population") all I know is you are postulating opposing views between the two threads and thus can be considered as either

A dimwitted dullard

Or

An inconsistent hypocrite.

Either way, you do not warrant the multiple logons with which you inflict your inconsistent jingoisms on us.
GY should resttrict you to one logon and allow you the same quotient of posting space as the rest of us mere "homo-sapiens".

"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!"

Kaep, I am neither a idiot nor a conspiracy theorist but, instead, a woman who likes sex a hell of a lot more than children and I have thankfully dodged breeder-men for most of my life and will continue to do so.

As such, I really do have the temeirty to ask for peer-reveiwed proof of your motherhood statement

What on earth is the contradiction between accepting that as a species we should put ourselves first, and accepting that as a species, if we want long-term survival, we should ensure that future generations are left with a planet worth living on?

Indeed, there's no essential contradiction with believing that the individual always comes first, and that making small sacrifices now will be better for future generations. Personally I couldn't think of anything worse than lying on my death-bed realising that I hadn't done all I reasonably could to give my children, and my children's children the best sort of life they could hope for. I fully support carbon taxes out of purely selfish motives, even though I know they might mean my electricity bill goes up - but I don't measure my quality of life based on how much electricity I use.

The IPCC's "agenda" is simply to examine the effect of human activity on the earth's atmosphere, and predict the likely long-term consequences. Currently our emissions *are* on a course to be slowly "controlling and taking over the Earth's entire biosphere", hence the point of Kyoto is avoid taking that path, and reduce the degree to which we're meddling with natural systems that are still beyond our ability to fully comprehend. Fortunately it's not necessary to fully comprehend them to understand that we're getting dangerously close to putting them in jeapordy.

If anyone is the contradictory one, it's you Col, by apparently claiming to be both libertarian and in support of population control.

Miaouw!

Othello. You're not a cat. You define yourself as a fox.
Nothing wrong with that. There are all kinds of women ..& men.

But your insinuation that the majority of women-are-foxes and men- are-breeders, when probably less than 1% of people fit that category is just narcissistic.

If you want peer reviewed proof get out of your townhouse and into the burbs and have a good look.

General Note: If the world were to remain at 6.5 billion people till we had the SPACE technologies to leave this rock, we and our environment would all be better off. OIL companies clearly disagree. They MUST transfer their wealth and power OUTWARD from their incestuous interference in global demographics and politics to SPACE.
Only people power can make them.

How do they interfere? They know women are up to 5 times better CONSUMERS than men if they are single(competetive) and if they have more than one child. Everything from beauty products & lawyers to SUVs & nappies boost markets that oil revenues depend upon. And Guess what? Media advertising is almost exclusively aimed at women as sex objects(foxes) to promote a division between the sexes and a net increase in divorce rates (now approaching 50% in most democracies). Women aren't stupid. Certain sections of the female population are on a roll. You can't blame women for copping it sweet, blindly accepting the uglier consequences of that and taking ever more drugs to cope(peer reviewed research backs this).

Hopefully, precisely because women are not stupid they will eventually reject this false adornment of power for what it is, not equal rights but a global corporate CON(Con the breeder man?). I am certain that then women will push for population stability and achieve it, as ONLY they can.

The Chinese can achieve population control with enormous individual & community benefits & without any fuss. Why can't western democracies & its women do the same?

'The Chinese can achieve population control with enormous individual & community benefits & without any fuss.'

Actually, Kaep, this is patently not true. It creates enormous fuss. It is implemented in a most ugly fashion and presently there is an about 4:1 men to women ratio because girl babies are more likely left to die than boy babies.

In case you don't realise, protest, public or private, is not tolerated in The People's Republic of China.

Nevertheless, climate change, global warming, whatever, cannot be honestly discussed without first and foremost addressing population growth.

It is immaterial whether Australia can still have more people. There are parts of the planet which are bursting at the seams. Australia may be an island, but it is still a part of this planet.

A baby tax is unlikely to have much effect as those who pay taxes are more likely to have a limit of two children anyway.

The ridiculous baby bonus should be scrapped immediately. That is a criminal waste of tax payers money. And perhaps no further child benefits after baby number two. The only thing with that, is that it will be difficult to manage with the blended families that are about.

People will have fewer children when there are no financial benefits to having them. Unfortunately to quite a few having children in the house means money going into an account.

I have children, but think it would be preferable and fairer if money paid for the benefit of children is actually spend on them, like hot lunches provided at school. Maybe even breakfast. School uniforms and school shoes are allocated per vouchers, attending doctors and dentists fully covered, etc.

You might be amazed at the birth control effect that money being paid directly to schools or in the form of specific vouchers could bring about.

Incidentally, ditto for non custodial parents paying for their children. I don't want to sound nasty, but that would also severely decrease the 'fights' over who gets to have the kids between separating couples.