Q&A “Do you have any suggestions on how you might curtail population growth apart from removing the baby bonus, nuking or starving them”

Well the baby bonus is a pointless Aussie sideshow which has no real “global impact”

As for nuking or starving them.

Doing nothing about population growth and misdirecting research and development minds and resources into fatuous climate-change agendas is like “fiddling whilst Rome burns”.

Sooner or later nations will have to decide, maybe in exchange for the development handouts or world bank funds, to use cheap mass-produced contraceptives in their food and water supply (obviously produced by the libertarian capitalist pharmicists who acknowledge opportunity in freely supplying the market) or, maybe the nations with exploding populations will introduce the same "social policies" which China has used.

Either way, doing nothing will leave them with your other options, to nuke their neighbours or let their populations starve.

Of course, curtailing the Church of Romes influence would also help, as a political elite, they have had far too much "centralised dictatorial power" and influence to peddle an agenda which really only serves their own ends and against the interests of individuals be they the catholic faithful or heretics (like me).

Whilst the educated and able western economies have run, for the past 40 years of post baby-boomer blip, with stable populations, the less educated third world have been breeding like bunnies, blissfully ignorant of the realities of their own sustainability.

Sooner (more than later) the reality will no longer be avoidable and the elephant in the room will trumpet its existence. I trust it willnot be you it stamps on.

Now Q&A I have made suggestions so

what are yours – or is your limited vision exhausted from nuking and starving?

Oh strategies like conventional war and pestilence have worked well in the past and seem to do a reasonable job, if the civil attrition and AIDs in Africa is any guide. However, I don't think even you were thinking about suggesting them again, they are "old hat", hardly "innovative".

Col Rouge, are you not capable of reading more than 1 post before or after?

On the other thread you refuse to engage and repeat your posts verbatim like a ranting troll.

For your personal clarification;

At the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, 179 countries agreed that population and development are inextricably linked, and that empowering women and meeting people's needs for education and health, including reproductive health, are necessary for both individual advancement and balanced development. The conference adopted a 20-year Programme of Action, which focused on individuals' needs and rights, rather than on achieving demographic targets.

Advancing gender equality, eliminating violence against women and ensuring women's ability to control their own fertility were acknowledged as cornerstones of population and development policies. Concrete goals of the ICPD centred on providing universal education; reducing infant, child and maternal mortality; and ensuring universal access by 2015 to reproductive health care, including family planning, assisted childbirth and prevention of sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AIDS.

Col, you have obviously not kept up to date on what is happening, either here in Australia (we have agreed to this Programme of Action) or indeed the rest of the world.

Population is an issue that must be addressed … but it is not going to happen overnight (unless you want to nuke or starve them).

Our goals are to;

• Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
• Achieve universal primary education
• Promote gender equality and empower women
• Reduce child mortality
• Improve maternal health
• Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
• Ensure environmental sustainability
• Develop a global partnership for development

Btw Col, this last one IS NOT about "centralist government" or "socialism by stealth" - your inane and boring mantras.

Seriously Col, if you want to know how these goals are being achieved (some better than others), go to the UN website – you might learn something. If you can’t do that, go and take your anti-rant medication.

Q&A, the UN might well have all sorts of noble goals, but at the end of the day
they still accept a human population of 9 billion as a given. Most of those
extra people will be in the third world.

All these noble goals, all these planned rights, but why don’t third world women
have the right to an abortion in the first trimester? After all, its accepted in the
West and huge numbers of third world women die, due to illegal abortions.
So much suffering, for no good reason.

I remind you that a lot of family planning clinics were doing great work in
the third world, until along came the Bush regime and any clinic that had
any connection with abortion, had their funding cut. Abstinence was going
to be the way to solve all this, just like the Catholics believe. Ha!

AFAIK the Vatican still have their little spies in the UN and anything that
remotely looks like abortion rights is quickly canned, due to their lobbying
efforts. So in this regard, the UN continues to act like a toothless tiger,
full of great intentions, but rather useless on the ground in achieving results.

How many hundreds of millions of women still don’t have access to family
planning or abortion services? Why should they not have those rights,
as Western women do?

You mentioned China and India. China at least has done something about
their population growth, when they realised that they had little option.

India once had a huge programme at offering women the option to have
their tubes tied. IIRC it was eventually canned, when a Catholic became
the health minister. Do not underestimate the lobbying ability of the
Vatican.

Its all very well talking about teaching men responsibility, but whilst you
do that over the next 100 years, third world women will continue to be
treated as chattels, and be forced to pop out babies ad lib. If they are
raped, they can’t even have the foetus aborted. So where are their
rights? The toothless tiger ignores all that for obvious reasons.

I agree with you Yabby, the UN does have issues (veto by the USA Bush Administration does not help).

However, that is what the world has and that is what the world has to work with - for all sorts of good reasons as you acknowledge.

Aside:
To address the issues of the UN (whilst off-topic) is for a world-wide groundswell from the bottom up to encourage member states to change the structural procedures so that more can be done. Dilemma? you then face the accusation of a "world government".

The UN is damned if they do and damned if they don't. I prefer to support them in what is quite obviously difficult times. Unless we do, the whole world will spiral down into anarchy and I don't think any of us want that ... well, except for the fundamentalist extremists from all sides of the politico-religo spectrum.

"but why don’t third world women have the right to an abortion in the first trimester? After all, its accepted in the West and huge numbers of third world women die, due to illegal abortions. So much suffering, for no good reason."

Absolutely agree, answer lies in religious dogma (as you have alluded to) and a patriarchal society as I have already mentioned ... and not mutually exclusive either.

"You mentioned China and India. China at least has done something about their population growth, when they realised that they had little option."

Need I say more?

Look Yabby, it's a hard road but you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned education. It will not happen overnight, but we must persist.

Btw, the world can support 9 bil (it will have to by 2050 anyway) but it can only do so if we (humanity) 'develop' in more sustainable way - dumbnuts can't see that.

Q&A Goals impact on population decline

Against each “goal” I assess its effect in reducing population numbers (in CAPITALS to make reading easier not to shout).

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger NEGATIVE

Achieve universal primary education INEFFECTUAL

Promote gender equality and empower women INEFFECTUAL WITHOUT INVOLVING MEN

Reduce child mortality NEGATIVE

Improve maternal health NEGATIVE

Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases NEGATIVE

Ensure environmental sustainability IRRELEVANT

Develop a global partnership for development DUH!

Oh the last, well any wally can string a bunch of weasel words together, typical public official / bureaucratic trick, fill up the page with meaningless platitudes and “non-quantifiable” objectives.

So your own stated “goals” are, IMHO, a total wank and more likely to increase burgeoning third world populations, not reduce them.

I guess your “population summit” was attended by the usual tossers and bureaucratic hangers-on who one generally finds suckling off the public teat.
.
As for “agreed that population and development are inextricably linked”

Development is about “quality”

Population is about “quantity”

I am interested in my life quality, it is being threatened by the curtailment of my disposable income into nebulous carbon taxes, which will increase my cost of basic living, thus reduce my disposable income and discretionary “life quality”.

The best way of preserving and further developing our “life quality” is to limit the “population quantity”.

Sure some “national economic growth” will be curtailed, so what. Better a small population living well than all of us starving along side the third world unregulated population explosions.

As for my repeated references to “Socialism by Stealth”,

you would have also seen my reference also to “Socrates and Carthage” on another post.

But it has obviously gone right over your head.

I guess you prove how subtlety is always wasted on the obtuse.

Yabby, as usual I concur with your analysis and reasoning.

Q&A “Btw, the world can support 9 bil”

But not quite as well as it would support only 4 billion (fewer carbon gases too).

You might aspire to be limited to the “lifestyle” of some third world hunter-gatherer but I do not.