*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.*

Wiz, clearly we have evolved to think a bit, but not enough for not
to wipe ourselves out.

Biodiversity actually creates a species barrier, which has huge
advantages. Cram more and more chooks, ducks, pigs, people
or whatever, ever closer together, the result is that viruses, bacteria
and other things will have a field day. Don't forget, the earth
can do without mammals. Mutations happen every day.

AFAIK, both hiv and ebola have come from us eating our closest
relatives, bonobos and chimps, in Africa. When it comes to pig
and chicken diseases, they often mutate in China, where these animals
are crowded together with people.

This version of ebola is interesting, as its latent for 3 weeks.
If some person carries it into Hong Kong or a similar airport,
the proverbial crap would really hit the fan. The more we cram
more people together, the larger will be the problem when something
nasty does mutate, as the species barrier applies less and less.

You think 9 billion humans is fine. IMHO you are asking for more
trouble, as every extra billion makes things even less sustainable,
so in the end nature will sort it out with a thud. I guess we humans
learn the hard way, it seems we need pain to learn alot of the time.

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

If you had the capacity to understand my posts you would have read a single recurring theme common to all of them.

I support libertarianism ideals but I accept and further expect personal accountability and responsibility for that libertarianism.

As I said, I expect, that to mean the peoples of the world who cannot afford to support their children should adopt contraception as the alternative.

There is no human right to breed.

When I look around at some children who my daughters went to school with who, because they can get some baby bonus, go out and get banged up by the next dropkick dick-hanger then expect the state to tend to their every future need as an “under-privileged family” and compare that to the responsible attitude of my daughters. One of my girls was so disgusted by one of her old class mates who came back to school briefly before getting knocked up for the second time.

Libertarianism is the desirable way for the future.

Gone are the repressive orders of class and theology.

We could have such a fabulous future.

However, it all hinges on people accepting responsibility for the freedom to be.

btw concerning “believing that the individual always comes first, and that making small sacrifices now will be better for future generations.”

I have always made “small sacrifices” I call it “being responsible”.

However, being responsible does not mean acquiescing to propaganda of a non-representative international agency, a carpet bagging snake oil salesman, and one time US VP or the likes of you whose notion of democratic representation is to use two logons instead of following the ethical course of using but one, like the rest of the OLO posters.

I note you have avoided comment

“GY should restrict you to one logon and allow you the same quotient of posting space as the rest of us mere "homo-sapiens".

There is no acceptable repost available for you to excuse yourself with.

Col Rouge, I think you fundamentally mis-state the nature of Libertarianism. If you genuinely believe in Libertarianism, then other people's choices (providing they don't interfere with your choices) are none of your business. "Personal accountability" is not a Libertarian concept. You're accountable only if you infringe someone else's freedoms, otherwise you can do as you please. Free to choose, free to worship (or not), free to starve, free to procreate (with whomever chooses to procreate with you). Sounds a bit like that old John Lennon song?

I think you're confusing Libertarianism with Conservatism.

I have 7 children - sorry, I can feel the outrage already, however, we didn't have children to get the baby bonus, it was just the result of a natural monogamous relationship - again, I feel the outrage.

But, the money we have received over the years has been put to good use. We removed the air conditioners and put in better insulation; we installed water tanks for the 30m sq vegetable garden and several large trees (including a Bunyah Pine) and we only have one vehicle that averages 4 passengers or more per trip.

According to the utility suppliers, our 9 person household uses less water and electricty than the average 4 person household. So, depsite our errors, I think we are managing our footprints pretty well so far.

With any luck, one of our children will major in geriatrics and we shall live happily ever after for a long time.

Col, that additional account was removed the day before you complained about it.

Yabby, I don't think 9 billion is "fine", I'm just not sure we can do anything to avoid it. Reality Check's post is an example of what I'm talking about - if 9 people in one household can have less ecological footprint than 4 in another, with no significant loss of quality of life, then 9 billion people can have a smaller ecological footprint than 6.5 billion.
And RC, I'd much rather see 7 children with a decent sense of environmental responsibility than 2 with none. You needn't feel guilt or worry about "outrage".

Australian political leaders have yet to spell out their vision for a truly sustainable Australian lifestyle.

How do we achieve dramatic reductions in GHG, reversing the upward spiral?

Cap and trade for all businesses is a good first step but clearly no where near enough to seriously address the drastic cuts that need to be made. Reliance on the good-will of Australians is simply unfair and bad public policy.

We need financial incentives and disincentives related to our personal carbon footprints linked into our personal income taxation.

Could we make the necessary changes to our life-styles so that we have strong financial incentives to steer us towards becoming carbon neutral or close to it?

Our electricity bills show now us how much gas we emit with our energy consumption.

It's not such a big leap or logistical exercise for our taxation system to be redesigned to reward taxpayers with the smallest carbon footprints with rebates whilst surcharges are imposed on selfish people who remain heavy gas emitters.

Wasteful and excessive consumption patterns can be targeted with smart policy choices that put the pain of re-adjustment where it should be – decisions on family size will find its own equilibrium.