(continuedfromabove)

I don't entirely exclude this possibility (and, indeed, would be overjoyed if it could be proven to be the case), but it is recklessly irresponsible to presume, as you are presuming, that this the only possible explanation of our ability to sustain vastly larger numbers, when the strong correlation between the increase in human numbers and the increase in consumption of finite non-renewable natural resources, including tens of millions of years worth of solar energy stored in fossil fuels, suggests a far more likely explanation.

If you are wrong, then we are in deep trouble when those non-renewable resources are exhausted. (Just maybe India's nuclear program will help, instead of making an already dire situation even worse, but nuclear fuel is also a finite resource and so nuclear fission can only be expected to buy a few more decades of time at best.)

Mil-observer wrote, "'Green Revolution' depended on seed technology and infrastructure; petrochemicals were a lesser, indirect contributor."

Are you claiming that the increased agricultural productivity brought about by the "Green Revolution" can be maintained without fossil-fuel based fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, or, indeed, soil and water?

---

Thanks, ericc.

Clearly in mil-observer's view, questioning the capacity of planet earth to indefinitely sustain a population of 6.5 billion and climbing or advocating any restrictions upon movements of people across the globe are crimes every bit as monstrous as the worst of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, etc.

As such, anyone holding advocating population stability has no right to expect to have substantiated accusations made against them of advocating genocide or of being "anti-human" elitists.

Little old Christopher wrote, "And the entertainment value compensates for the inanity, for those of us who look in on these admittedly odd conversations from time to time."

It's good to know that Christopher still has sufficient time on his hands to follow conversations on such 'inane' topics as the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by the 'war on terror' and whether of not billions of the world's current population will starve to death in the coming decades as fresh water, soil and the stocks of petroleum necessary to sustain our current levels of food production are exhausted and it's good to know that he appreciates the "entertainment value" of such conversations.

No doubt, Christopher's local Green candidate is assured of winning his/her seat and will have no need of Christopher's help in the coming weeks.

Or has it has been decided that his/her electoral prospects would actually improve if Christopher were to spend his time thus on OLO instead of actively campaigning for the Greens?

What a snarky response from James to my defence of his right to babble on endlessly. Obviously, the entertainment value doesn't refer to the potential of the various doomsday scenarios to which the Indepependent candidate for Mt Coot-tha subscribes, but rather to his predilection for butting heads with others who are as obsessed as him, but in other directions. Keep it up, old boy - I'm sure your ravings here and elsewhere are of great assistance to your political aspirations.

Of course, that aspect of your quixotic activities would be much more entertaining if you were to run in Beaudesert instead of Mt Coot-tha - with Pauline Hanson and Warwick Capper standing for that seat, the addition of James Sinnamon on the 9/11 Truth ticket would have made it a 3-ring circus. Mind you. you seem to have some similar ideas to Ms Hanson concerning multiculturalism and refugees.

<< No doubt, Christopher's local Green candidate is assured of winning his/her seat and will have no need of Christopher's help in the coming weeks. >>

Given that I live in the Borg's electorate, where he is routinely returned with over 60% of the primary vote, I gather that the Greens will be fielding the same paper candidate as in the last Federal election. They aren't silly enough to waste their resources on hopeless election campaigns that benefit only the inflated egos of those who seek attention by pretending to be politically significant.

Actually, at the last election I handed out HTVs for the ALP candidate at my local booth, since he's a personal friend and my little town usually returns the best Labor vote in the electorate. I gave the Greens candidate my first preference, my second going to the ALP.

If it's not too late, I urge you to consider running in Beaudesert rather than Mt Coot-tha. And do continue to provide entertainment in this forum, won't you?

[Well, for real entertainment, you can't beat a Queenslanders' spat about electioneering, even with its "finite limits" etc., brought about by those parochial idiosyncrasies that all Australians so love ever since Kingaroy became the country's de facto entertainment capital. And the incumbent's inherited link to such fraught political precedent as the Rum Rebellion...]

daggett: "If you are wrong, then we are in deep trouble when those non-renewable resources are exhausted. (Just maybe India's nuclear program will help, instead of making an already dire situation even worse, but nuclear fuel is also a finite resource and so nuclear fission can only be expected to buy a few more decades of time at best.)"

Reconsider your sentence. You claim that if I'm wrong, then "we" (presumably all humanity) "are in deep trouble". FYI: I don't carry that kind of clout, and I have no significant say in India's nuclear program. Oligarch-sponsored lobbies like the Club of Rome however - especially as I referred in the Kissinger example - do wield such political influence and means of causing serious trouble for humanity.

daggett: "Are you claiming that the increased agricultural productivity brought about by the "Green Revolution" can be maintained without fossil-fuel based fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, or, indeed, soil and water?"

If we pursue the hypothetical point enough then yes, I can claim that, even to the extent that the petrochemical industry you mention can also manufacture synthetic i.e., non-fossil-fuel-based variants of what you cite (except soil and water!). However, I strongly object to most such manufacture where encouraging the inefficient "biofuel" industry that has threatened starvation, especially via its inflationary potential in speculation linked to petrodollar and "carbon credits", etc.

But your point is still very indirect and weak, even contrived; you could've easily asked: "Are you claiming that the increased agricultural productivity...can be maintained without [people/advertising media/private enterprise/state intervention]", and so on.

Also, "soil and water" are not "fossil-fuel-based", at least not in this part of the country. It seems your language is tying your thoughts in knots: try plain English wherever possible - the less syllables and clauses the better.

Of course, the last sentence of my second most recent post should have read, "As such, anyone advocating population stability has no right to expect to have substantiated accusations made against them of advocating genocide or of being 'anti-human' elitists."

I left the word 'holding' in by mistake.

---

mil-observer wrote, "Every excuse to try denying development to countries like India. It's actually sick, and apparently resentful at the rise and challenge posed by those long neglected and oppressed. The political system aimed at, and most compatible with, such misanthropic bile is fascism, and on a global scale. The Malthusians feel that their time has come now that the financial system's disintegrating into ongoing catastrophic effects, with no leading states courageous to declare its bankruptcy and build afresh. ..."

"If we pursue the hypothetical point enough then yes, I can claim that, even to the extent that the petrochemical industry you mention can also manufacture synthetic i.e., non-fossil-fuel-based variants of what you cite (except soil and water!). ..."

Then mil-observer wrote, " It seems your language is tying your thoughts in knots: try plain English wherever possible ..."

I think mil-observer should take his own advice.

---

Glad to see that Christopher has found an excuse to snipe at others who are prepared to stick their necks out in coming weeks instead of trying to make a worthwhile difference himself.

Anyone interested in candidates (including myself) who are trying to offer Queenslanders a real choice (and this doesn't necessarily exclude the Greens), please visit http://candobetter.org/QldElections http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha http://candobetter.org/QldElections/SouthBrisbane http://candobetter.org/QldElections/Burleigh etc.

Constructive comments, whether critical or supportive, are welcome.

No, I've written some pretty succinct complexities here.

You'd have a few rambling chapters if trying to cover the same, and there'd be plenty of confusing logic among them too.