Both the Coalition and the ALP are immigration junkies who have no business appearing to be concerned about climate change, the damn hypocrites!

There are too many people in the world, and there are too many people in Australia. Taxing people to cut CO2 while bringing more people here is the most ludicrous, anti-Australian thing ever perpetrated on us by both Coalition and Labor Governments; and the also rans like the Greens keep very quiet about population numbers these days.

From the immigrants’ point of view, they will be starting to ask why they were encouraged to come here when they are now the first to lose their jobs as the global financial stuff up takes hold, and jobs are now being lost in Australia. Most of them are employed in low skilled work: the first to be affected by recession.

Immigrants are the ones whose jobs the current government claims to be attempting to save are going, when we didn’t need them or the manufacturing industries, which will inevitably end up in China anyway, in the first place. Unemployed or not, they are here to stay, consuming natural resources, polluting and straining inadequate infrastructure.

The author’s comparison of people with the lower orders of animals is spot on. People are either too stupid or simply don’t care about the effects of over-population on themselves; even though we are never short of TV images and stories of what is happening in other over-populated countries.

Australians should be enraged to the point of revolution over what their politicians are doing to this country through immigration mania. But, even the Greens have dropped the only good policy they ever had, according to the author who is a member. This just shows that we cannot rely on any brand of politics to do the right thing. They are all cynical, self-serving bastards who will push the country go down the drain for their own warped ideologies.

Leigh, it's not often I agree with your comments, but this is certainly one of those times.

Unless we can learn the difference between refugees and immigrants, the Left won't support limiting population.

Unless we can get the Right to recognise that you cannot have an economy separate from the environment, then the Coalition (and Labor Right) won't support limiting population.

And, until we can dump the religious fundies (including Pope Benny) we won't be able to get real programs in developing countries for effective birth control.

All of those vested interests work in concert with the developer lobby to strangle any real debate on a sustainable population for Australia, let alone the world.

Jim

This article, like a number of others I have read on this issue, has no real substance. If population is a problem then how do you control it in Australia? Take the Chinese one-child per family approach? Limit immigration? I would be interested to see (from a safe distance) the author make practical suggestions rather than tell us, yet again, that population is a problem.

Then again, much of the supposed effects of population could be done away with by, say, a comprehensive nuclear reactor building program (forget renewables) and a substantial reduction in the agricultural sector (farming actually puts more strain on the environment than the major cities). Politically impractical? Very likely. but if you're crazy enough to suggests slashing immigration intakes than getting a few nuclear reactors built should be a snap.

Curmudgeon, please crawl back into your cave and stay there. How do you expect to feed the ever increasing population if you cut back on farming activities? As the farming sector currently stands, a reduction of output seems inevitable. One only has to fly across northern Victoria and Central and Southern New South Wales to see what the effects of the current prolonged drought are having on agriculture. If we are having trouble feeding out comparatively small population, how do you think that South East Asia is going to withstand the reduction in flows in the rivers which rely on the ever diminishing glaciers of the Himalayas.

History is bound to be repeated on a massive scale, never before seen on this earth, even if climate change turns out to be a furphy. It is too late even now to convince the governments of the world that population control should have been seriously undertaken years ago.

David

Kevster here ...

The Labor party needs new immigrant blood and their '10% GST on everything' to maintain rigid power over the states and this nation.

You don't want Howard back do youse?

Get with the program and accept the lowering of your living standards. Labor is here to stay forever. 3 cheers for immigration!

And don't worry about the environment. When we reach 30 million people at the end of my third term we will have enough GST collected to buy a new Environment.

But you lot don't need to see pristine environments anyway. Our Labor Developers and their juicy political sub-rosa donations will serve Labor well. 30 million people living in sardine cans with pretty granite benchtops and paying GST, rates and other taxes and riding pushbikes. Labor's got ya covered. And don't worry about hospital waiting lists. We will replace deaduns with new fresh GST paying migrants so no one will notice a few missing sickos or the odd baby down the toilet.

Vote Labor for stronger ECONOMIC GROWTH and let me be your God.

Kevster.

PS Anyone complaining about immigration or its relentless damage to Australia's environment will henceforth be regarded as criminally racist. And anyone postulating that the billions of extra litres of immigrant poop entering coastal ocean currents kills heat absorbing ecosystems, changing the hydrological cycle in favour of bushfire to the South and cyclonic floods to the North will be eliminated. We know where youse lives!

Here is a sinister and unfortunately, highly plausible, way to deal with the over-population crisis.

http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html

Trust me I am a white-coat-wearing-"scientist"!

KAEP

That just about sums it up.

David

The benefits of a constant flow of people to Australia is not about "skills shortages" that could easily be adjusted by increasing the range of educational programs and incentives. It is about strengthening the economy through a "brute force" method by boosting the demand for goods and services. More people means a bigger labor force, and ultimately cheaper wages. "Sustainability" is just ignored, and any addressing of climate change is just negated! The fact that a global population blow-out is more serious than climate change is being ignored by businesses and our government. They are selfishly aiming to maximise profits and taxes at the expense of future generations who will find it more expensive to live when limited resources cost more, and their liveability is compromised.

'The baking summer temperatures of February 2009 have southern Australians thinking about climate change and their limited water supplies.'

The author loses all credibility when he tries to use the climate change myth to further his argument. Why not start with North Queensland where enough rain has fallen to supply Australia's needs many times over. Why not speak of the fires in Victoria 100 years ago that covered much more of the State with a far lower population. Thankfully many scientist are now at least questioning the 'settled science' which is still to be produced.

No, like every other barrow pusher Michael uses emotive crap to justify pretending to have some sort of scientific base to support his arguements.

If we are going to reduce population why not start by killing a few more animals. It would increase the food supply and decrease water usage? Of course the earth worshipers would violently protest this decision. They would rather save the sharks and whales and kangaroos and murder unborn babies.

Like all that sprout off the overpopulation mantra no data is ever given as to how much land is still unoccupied on earth, how much food is wasted and how unevenly distributed resources are spread. All we hear is spin, spin spin. Lets worship the creation at all cost seems to be the mantra

Tendentious, over emotional clap trap. Feertility in Australia is 1.7 per female. That means we're BELOW the death rate. That's why we have immigration, skilled or not.

Much of this tripe is being driven by Jonathon Porritt in the UK who is calling for zero population growth. He praised Clive Hamilton's laughable book, Growth Fetish.

The writer of this article has taken a biological tack and fails completely to mention any recent studies that the earth has gone through warming and cooling many times in its history. What we have here are Willy Lomax's or Holden Caulfield's who never quite made it with capitalism and have decided the shoot not only the market but the people.

What do you call anti-immigration nationalists? What do you call people who want to sterilise men and women for the sake of the future? I mean we're not far off zeig heil are we? And these people call themselves the greens. Jeez.

I'm a big fan of the apocalypse movies: Brave New World, Nineteen Eighty-Four, ZPG, Planet of the Apes, but the writer and his supporters should think carefully about turning fiction in to fact.

"When we reach 30 million people at the end of my third term we will have enough GST collected to buy a new Environment."

LOL

* * *

What I find unsatisfactory about this article, and the entire approach to population that it signifies, is the lack of any real theory or understanding about the state. The 'population problem' is treated as a positivistic issue, much as a scientist might look at a population of mice in a laboratory cage and observe a tendency toward over-population.

The problem is of course, that you are not that scientist, and the rest of the human population are not just mice for you to manipulate their lives and reproduction in a manner than you find intellectually or otherwise satisfying. They are human beings with their own values.

This is where the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the green approach becomes clear. The state is the sub-group of society claiming a monopoly of the use of force. The state means the use of force. Policy means 'police-y'. It means what you are proposing to use tasers and handcuffs and assault weapons and prisons, or threats of them, to solve.

But from the fact of over-population, even assuming you have established it which you haven't, *nothing follows*. Why? Because science doesn't supply value judgments. Even assuming that there is a problem from people over-populating, it doesn't follow that you have either the ethical justification to violate people in order to manipulate them into a configuration more pleasing to *your* values, and it doesn't follow that just because there's a particular problem, therefore government can make it better. The reason you were called an eco-fascist is because you are an eco-fascist. You regard people as a species of noxious pest, and believe that if you can just concentrate enough lethal force behind arbitrary power you can achieve a final solution.

Before going too far down the "People concerned by population are really Nazis" track again, could you think a little about where you are headed?

e.g.<What do you call people who want to sterilise men and women for the sake of the future? I mean we're not far off zeig heil are we?>

Funny that, Hitler was always a population growth junkie as far as I know. (or Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam; in fact I cant think of any piece of despotic filth who wasn't a population growth junkie). So instead of taking the moral high ground and likening contributors concerned by population growth to Nazis, shouldn't one more logically be using the Nazi epithet for population growth junkies?

e.g.<Even assuming that there is a problem from people over-populating, it doesn't follow that you have either the ethical justification to violate people in order to manipulate them into a configuration more pleasing to *your* values, and it doesn't follow that just because there's a particular problem, therefore government can make it better>

Can anyone spot the irony in the statement? The reality is that the government considers there to be an underpopulation "problem" according to the consensus of values of the pollies, and they are involved in a manipulation via immigration and the baby bonus to correct this "problem". Is this any less unethical or justified by *your* own measure?

I mean really, this can be a civil discourse, yet time and again, with any topic on population, it gets spoiled with chookhouse floor scrapings.

Interesting how the antediluvian set is so keen to bring on another Godly flood, yet are so loudly vociferous in trying to stop the building of boats as a precautionary measure; unwilling to countenance the potential wrath, the savagery, of that supreme entity; in denial of the evidence all around them which is so conclusively documented and published, in material they refuse to acknowledge, since Charles Darwin’s day.

OK , so were 20 years on , we chopped immigration in 07 .
It was a toss up , Baby or Muscle Car , chopped the baby ...climate change you see .
Allah and his mob didn't get the idea , everybodies had 7 kids .
Japan , wot's a Summeri going to do with all that spare unemployed time he's had 7 kids too !
Russia , wot do you do in Russia to make a quid , same as a girl does in Las Vegas thats wot...so their'v all had 7 kids too

So here is OZ everybodies middle aged , we have saved our great southern land . Everybodies starving in the northern hemisphere .

Oui "Kevvie the Great" ! Stop tending your Turnips , big problem look at all these here Google Earth Pikies , immigrents billions of them , Vasco de Garmahs to perth in canooes , Nahroo's on reed arks , Coolies on lylows , Mik's in coricals , "I'ts a terrible invasion , It's a terrible invasion I mean it's a Terrible invasion Kevvie it's a terrible invasion , bloody'oward 12 wasted years , what are we gunnah do oh mighty Mystagogue ? Oh Viva Voce calm down ! Leave the Big Picture to Kevvie , summon Louminous Lout........Louminous Lout do a foward prediction estimate , look at these here pikkies , need to know is ; number of Number of Nahroo's to handbags , we'll sell to the Nahroo's and go live in Tassie good cheese and yogert and naturily cool , buggerall carbon.............no pubes cobber

Mao and Stalin as populationists? I rest my case.

*If we are going to reduce population why not start by killing a few more animals. *

That is the problem Runner, the world that you envisage. We've
been doing the above for ages and will continue to, but without
biodiversity, you won't have a humanity. That is basic biology.

I am no card carrying greenie, for I feel they are a feelgood party.
But I do take note of basic biology and if its not sustainable,
eventually the whole thing will collapse and nature will sort it out.

So my answer for years has been that every woman on the planet should
be able to choose how many children she has and family planning
should be available to all. The extra 80 million a year nearly all
originate from countries where women don't have that choice.

Population is a global issue, not an Australian one. It needs
global answers and politicians with some guts to address it.
They are certainly not to be found in Australia. We won't even
help women with family planning in the thrid world, no thanks to Harradine.

So as we speak Runner, the last of the wild chimps, bonobos,
orang-utans, gorillas, tigers and many other species, are being wiped out,
eaten, shot, to make way for more humans.

I'm certainly glad that I won't have to see the planet that
you seemingly are quite happy to leave to your great grandkids.

Let em live in the concrete jungle heh. We can always show them
pictures of those magnificent species that used to exist

I'm with Yabby here. Humans will pay a vast penalty with many casualites should biodiversity be threatened to a dangerous degree.

The scariest part is that there are a number of people that really think we can just keep on populating without any effect on our natural evironment. The irony is that once resources become scarce - water, land, plant material for various uses and our technology can no longer keep up with demand, then we really will see a detrimental flow on effect for human beings. Probably in the form of global, localised and civil wars over scarce resouces (those that are not polluted).

The best way to reduce populations is not to make it advantageous to produce large families (no baby bonuses, maternity leave) and ensure a broad social support network that provides for people in old age. Societies that depend purely on family support in old age are usually the poorest with the highest infant mortality rate (so lots more babies produced as insurance) - they more than any need a different social support structure.

Also stop immigration in all but exceptional circumstances.

Live more simply without the idolatry of material possessions in a system that is not dependent on comsumption and expansion.

Population control can be achieved by means other than enforced family sizes. China's one-child policy was abhorrent particularly because it was enforced within a culture where boy babies were essential to the survival of the family.

Planet Earth is finite, there is a limit to the number of people that the planet can support, just as there is a limit to the amount of junk we can put into the biosphere before we begin to make the planet unhabitable.

Australians are among the worst polluters on the planet, we should not encourage others to live like we do. We must reduce our demands on the planet, the only way we are going to survive is if we learn to live sustainable lifestyles. We need to reduce our footprint on the planet, increased population and continued economic growth will destroy us, if we do not learn to control our greed.

"The scariest part is that there are a number of people that really think we can just keep on populating without any effect on our natural environment."

Because they agree with James Watt that "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back". It's hard to act sanely in this world when you're focus is on the next.

Perhaps the language of population needs to be turned around. We don't need population 'control' in Australia, but we do need to let our population take its natural course and stop paying baby bonuses and bringing in more people than we can cope with. All this talk about one-baby policies and forced sterilisation is just hysterical hogwash.

The trouble with levelling or reducing our population is that it will involve very hard work from government, economists and others to restructure our economy away from the endless growth paradigm. Unfortunately, people who brand as 'eco-nazis' those of us concerned about the future of our species and the well-being of the planet make this a very hard row to hoe. The current global financial crisis offers an opportunity to learn to manage with lower growth, if any government had the political will.

In his 2003 book, Plague Species, Reg Morison predicts that we will, of our own accord, approach zero fertility around 2030 and that world population will follow a bell curve, declining from 7 billion in 2030 to less than 2 billion by 2140. So perhaps we are worrying about nothing, but surely it would be better to plan for a new sort of economy for the benefit of our children and grandchildren.

At least there is much more discussion of population these days, and here's hoping the Greens and Tim Flannery will soon be able to mention the P word without being abused.

Excellent point, Yabby. Some posters have suggested that curbing population growth entails eco-fascists forcibly sterilising large segments of the population. In reality, it involves giving women equality, education, and access to contraception. The truth is that most government intervention is for the purpose of increasing populations, and this seems to be perfectly acceptable to the growth zealots.

<The trouble with levelling or reducing our population is that it will involve very hard work from government, economists and others to restructure our economy away from the endless growth paradigm.>

Is this really the case? The result of Queensland's recent population growth odyssey is projected to be a $72 billion state debt within a few years. This debt is due to the infrastructure requirements of a growing population, and occurred during a period of unprecedented prosperity. Perhaps the real Henny Penny's are the ones forecasting untold doom and calamity from a stable population.

Good article,Micheal.

Just ignore the ratbag denialists.They are headed the same way as the global warming deniers.

Sancho if you are going to take a stab at end times please try and get it right. It is true that no matter how much we worship nature it will not prevent the planet from burning on judgement day. It is also true that most Christians have a far more balanced approach to looking after the environment than the hypocritical Greens who are quick to destroy human life in an effort to uphold their dogmas. Just look the the destruction caused by the bushfire's largely due to Green hypocrisy. There were no winners. The current crop of gw High Priests have already been shown to be frauds.

Excellent article Michael.
Could I refer all readers to a book about to be released, "Overloading Australia". Those are the facts and a simple read will convince anyone with an open mind that the numbers will soon add up to a catastrophe.

"Before going too far down the "People concerned by population are really Nazis" track...

The problem is not people who are "concerned about" population. It's people who want to use police and prisons to address their concerns about population. The issue is whether the issue is to be addressed by means of *policy* or not. Once someone calls for policy, the issue then includes the use of police, and armed force.

“Funny that, Hitler was always a population growth junkie as far as I know."

Obviously he wasn't as concerns many groups. He, like the greens, had an instrumental view of the use of force on population questions, and a belief that government is capable of solving any problem, given enough power.

"(or Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam; in fact I cant think of any piece of despotic filth who wasn't a population growth junkie)."

Despotism consists of the use of power to enforce arbitrary opinion. That’s the point.

All of these men presided over policies that killed very large numbers of people. When we talk of 'policy' we are necessarily talking about an arrangement that intends to use lethal force, or threats of lethal force, to get the arbitrary result decided by the political process. The greens don't think of themselves as invoking violence. But that's only because they expect that by passing the law they want, they'll get the compliance - obedience - from the rest of the population that they want.

But what if I don't agree, and oppose your policy with the same weapons and tactics that the police will bring to enforce it? They'll use over-powering force.

What if I get a group of other guys to come and defend me? The state will escalate it - right up to war.

But if that is not true, then why not scrap the idea of having a policy in response to the ‘population problem’?

Why not make your response one that is decided by voluntary action, not by violence or threats? I have answered your question. Please answer this last one of mine.

"So instead of taking the moral high ground and likening contributors concerned by population growth to Nazis, shouldn't one more logically be using the Nazi epithet for population growth junkies?"

If you are referring to pro-population policies, it is not *more* logical to call them Nazis. It is equally logical.

But if you are referring to people who want to have a baby, without forcible interference either for or against, no they do not deserve the epithet of Nazi, because they are not proposing using tasers, guns, handcuffs and prisons against anyone to get what they want.

"The reality is that the government considers there to be an underpopulation "problem" according to the consensus of values of the pollies, and they are involved in a manipulation via immigration and the baby bonus to correct this "problem". Is this any less unethical or justified by *your* own measure?"

No. Pro-population policies are no less unethical and unjustified, and should be abolished

A very good article, Michael; well written and supported. I look forward to your next one.
As most of the more rational posters on this thread have identified, Australia's population growth is more due to immigration than reproduction -despite such ludicrous white Australia policies as the baby bonus. This means on a global scale, Australia's problem is not so much growth as it is redistribution.
The answer to reproductive growth has been clearly demonstrated for decades. As one poster on this thread quoted, Australia's reproductive rates, in line with other advanced countries, is less than replacement.
Poverty, and infant mortality, are the main drivers of population growth. As one of the early OPEC oil ministers was quoted: "We were very poor. It was common to have 6 or 7 children, in the hope that one might survive".
Higher standards of living, better medical care and better education -particularly of females- have proven time and again to be highly effective in lowering reproductive rates.
Personally, I think there is an element of human pragmatism, which has been so far under appreciated in this topic.
Agrarian populations have always tended to have large families, even in richer countries. When people start moving to the cities, reproductive rates tend to drop.
Simply put, on a farm children tend to be an asset as cheap labour. In the cities, particularly if education is compulsory -and child labour is outlawed- children are a cost.
Ergo,the very simple way to reduce the population overall is to make sure having children is economically non-viable.

<Why not make your response one that is decided by voluntary action, not by violence or threats? I have answered your question. Please answer this last one of mine.>

The action that would have the greatest impact on world population growth would be education, the recognition of women as having equal rights, and the availability of contraception. I dont think that anyone would object to the pursuit of such things.

In Australia's case, the population is already headed for stability but for government intervention to increase the population. This is the case in many countries as it is widely believed to be a driver of prosperity. It was also the view of the despots I mentioned, though Mao did change his mind when the problems of a growing population became overwhelming.

I think the idea that government have no role in determining population is unrealistic. The notion that a population policy implies jackbooted thuggery is alarmist. For Australia, the implication of such a policy may be to train more Australians, with the bonus that we will not have to pilfer skilled workers from the rest of the world. This hardly seems like something to fear.

While I wonder if Curmudgeon wasn’t being a wee bit satirical in suggesting his solutions. I do wonder how all the focus on immigration will solve anything.

• Climate change (note those words) Knows no borders.

• Population concerns aren’t new as far back as the late 60’s ZPG was a plank in the ‘Australia Party’ there was even a Hollywood movie emotionally deploring it.

• Our wheat was being sold at below it’s real cost of its production, bounties, preferential treatments, loss of non replaceable minerals etc in the soil. 70’s.

• Add to this wholesale loss of arable land due to tree clearing/ water table rises, the drying of the artesian basin 80’s, Perth is even worse already having used a great percentage of its fossil water at a greater rate than remplenishment. Now the CSIRO confirm that the loss of tree cover is causing changes in rain fall patterns,

• Desertification of marginal farming lands, erosion (massive topsoil dust storms) in Melb. Mallee topsoil has been found on NZ coastal trawlers. Since the late 70’s

None of the above are new and like the song “Vincent” says “they didn’t listen then perhaps they’ll listen now.” if not what will it take?

All the “oh dears”, “tut, tutting” in the world are going to achieve anything. Neither are more chicken Littles…. As my Dad used to put it “if there must be panic let it be organized (planned)”
It’s time for ideas what we CAN do not continue arguing over the self evident. Our human mass is of such a size (number) that our very existence in our current behaviour is inexorably changing the world like no other species and not necessarily for the better.

We as a species need to decide do we remain as victims of Evolution or do we modify the theory by changing the part of our conditioning that we can but we need to do it en mass.

Basically the whole world stops dead in its tracks. In the event of global natural disaster which in such a case all communications and trade would come to a complete stop and then all back to our corners we would go, so is there a way to make the same scenario happen without all the blood and death.
Can we see the future before it happens?

We need to get rid of the need for money.
Hey! why does everything need a price attached to it?
I do prefer the world of the three musketeers but I guess greed on the black horse or four the case maybe will darken us to the last hoof print.

Why people cant get there minds around the benefits, the imagination of the future and its people are far worse, and which ever way you look at it the one's who's disfavour it is in, they will be the one's to appose it. (anyone smell greed)
I think going back to the country and spiritual way of looking after this land must be taken seriously and pay less attention to the outside world. US in particular. while we can be friends being good buddies just wont happen. You have your culture and we have ours.
To take a stance and become more independent and completely shut the door on immigration because it make the sense for the reason everyone wants to live here.

To be quite frank Australians are feeling the pressure of a once relaxed lifestyle and now not so. To me that is a clear piece of evidence that the people are calling for well no more people.

So when greed stops, then you can have your nice clean planet back.

So no-one wants to get small and smarter.

Iam sure to Murray or the darling, maybe just a 100 thousand more wont matter! Yeah! she'll be right mate! bugger it! make it another 5 million people! why not, we have plenty room bro.

Runner. I am not going to say a word.;)

Smile.

EVO

Fester, the idea of educating women about their rights to use contraception, etc., is good, but probably we have gone too far for it to have a useful effect universally. As far as we in Australia are concerned, reduced immigration, a better educated population and removal of the present incentives to have children are fine, but try that in India, China, Pakistan or any of the Catholic dominated countries and I think you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. I would hope that people like Cheryl might have no trouble agreeing with your thesis, but it seems that any effort toward reducing population automatically brands those of us who think that way as some sort of a two headed monster.

Obviously, the one child per family idea in China has not worked as they have managed to treble their population since 1945, as has India with its apparently liberal use of contraceptives.

Perhaps some more constructive ideas from the naysayers might be useful to the discussion.

David

David
The Chinese one child policy has certainly had an impact, as evidenced by the 60 million plus men for whom there are now no potential partners/wives. I think you will find that a significant part of the population growth is due to increased life expectancy - far fewer dying as early as they used to as well as fewer being born. It will be interesting to see how the next generations go, the ones used to being only children.

The biggest impediments to sensible population behaviour are the Catholics and the poor Muslim countries. Just today the Catholic church in Brazil has excommunicated the mother and doctors of a nine year old girl for terminating her pregnancy (twins) to her stepfather. Perhaps the evangelical American churches, which are gaining a foothold in Latin America, are the best hope there. Muslim countries where women have no reproductive control and polygamy is practised are another problem. Passing through Dubai some years ago a local newspaper had a story about an unemployed Pakistani man who was the proud father of 60 children! With the Taliban in NW Pakistan busy blowing up girls schools and beheading anyone trying to educate girls the problem seems almost insurmountable.

On the immigration front, I agree that our immigration policy will do nothing in relation to global population, but reducing our intake to sustainable levels and developing a new economic paradigm divorced from endless growth could show other countries the way.

Waiting for the rest of the world will serve no purpose. Should we not be thinking of our purpose and we may have to stop being so generous. I don't have a lot of time but the facts are clear. If Australia keeps its mates at a distance and associate only with barter and good will, the sound of the natural will ring out the words of independence.
In a global community, independence seems to be a dirty word, but the benefits for the clan involvement, shall be our sanctuary with no intent to join. Clearly Australians knows of this reality, so why aren't you shutting the gates, yes! this has ran a thousand times.

So why are we kissing the super powers arse, when we know it doesn't work. This is how Jesus made a lot of political gains, and eventually everyone sees through the con.

Whatever way the wind blows, is just not good enough. Let the world De-evolutionise, and may we be the standing talk to all reality that sustainability plus many more intregrated conclusions and we run without the shackles of lets keep up with the Jones.

It's Bullsh@t! and the fact is! WE DO NOT NEED ANYONE!

So now who's got the bull by the horns so to speak with respect.
Basically stop pushing your bullsh@t onto other cultures. We still have baby boots on ya no.

So what are you afraid of Australia. We are in the cool. wink!

Let them all experience the ten rats in a box.

It's true!

We are the quiet achievers.

EVO

According to the theory of evolution the toughest survive. The weak will be replaced by the stronger. Now the population of Indonesia is about 200 million. Australia has a much smaller population in comparison.

Since most people are evolutionsists, and by the laws of democracy (majority wins) it is morally OK and scientific for the Indonesians to migrate to Australia and, in to process eliminate the Australians since they are not productive, reproductive rate of only 1.7, below the replacement rate.

So one can solve the population problem through democracy and evolution. The majority race has the right to wipe out the minority races.

Most of the worlds current problems ( pollution, diminution of resources, susceptibility to natural disasters, epidemics) are symptoms of overpopulation/overcrowding.

The pollution that is said to lead to climate change is really a problem of too many people. Natural cycles cannot cope, in the time needed, with the volume of waste produced.

The irony is that attempts to address the symptoms may be adding, bigger future problems .
1)At the core of The Kyoto Protocol is a measuring system that allows burgeoning population to dilute culpability. Many countries produce greater pollution than Aust but their higher population means, on Kyoto’s per capita measure, they’re deemed less culpable . Thus many of the worst polluters(by volume) can put off till another day the need to take remedial action precisely because of their burgeoning populations.
2) Modern medicine/aid when applied to the third world leads to greater survival rates – without a commensurate expansion of family planning.

Some have seen hope in forecasts that world population will leveling off –but even at yesterdays levels, numbers are way too high.

We are living in a particularly mild climatic & tectonic period . One doesn’t have to look too far back to see –natural occurrences– that would if they happened today, depopulated many currently densely populated regions.

Even if only –some– of the scenarios that climate changes prophets have envisaged come true, Australia is likely to be swamped with immigrants.Whatever good housekeeping practices , internal population controls we implement, are likely to be worth zilch.

Our “leaders” need to push for world population reduction with the same enthusiasm they have sought out every photo opportunity offered by the Kyoto Protocol.And, our leaders need to have the backbone to implement tough border controls-- pigs might fly!

Good thinking re education of women to try reduce fertility rates. That's the only constructive comment I've read.

This is instrumentalism and anti-intellectualism at its worst. The problem with assuming master narratives such as global warming = we're all doimed therefore we have to do x,y or z or the worlds population is unsustainable itherefore we have to do a,b,c is that no where is your argument demonstrated.

The global warming argument has so many holes in it that it is only just gaining traction. In its favour is advertising lip service as brands come on board for the green sell.

It's easy to write glib statements about reducing population but there is no support for this option anywhere in the world. One reasons the Greens haven't canvased it - although it underpins much of Clive Hamilton's thinking - is that it's electoral poison.

The population in the west is shrinking but it's booming in India, Asia and Africa. Who ever said education was on the mark and clearly first world governments have an onus to reduce the causes of high fertility rates = cheap labour.

Cheryl, education is just one part of it, availability of family
planning materials and services, is however vital.

For a minute just forget that you are Cheryl the rich Australian,
lets imagine that you were Cheryl the young African, whose
husband had just paid 10 cows for you and he want's his money's
worth.

There would be no chemist shops around to buy your contraception,
in fact no money to buy any and no clinic to give you or him the
snip, when you felt that you had enough kids. No abortion services
either, when you felt that you just could not handle any more.

You would simply pop out kids as they came along, some would
live and some would die.

Under those circumstances, education alone would clearly not be
enough, the simple, basic provision of family planning services
would in fact be a huge relief to you, to have some control over
your fertility.

The above is exactly what alot of women in the third world face.

My point all along has been that we should be providing those basic
services to women of the third world, even if the Catholic Church
would try to stop us all the way.

"According to the theory of evolution the toughest survive. The weak will be replaced by the stronger."

Nope. You got that so wrong I didn't bother with the rest of your post. Looks like you've got some reading to do, Philip.

Cheryl, are you sure you know what anti-intellectualism is? Uncritically swallowing any and all glib criticism served up to you by corporate economists and industry-funded PR hacks because it suits your political views puts you with the Intelligent Designers, not the defenders of rational enquiry.

Yabby

While I enjoyed much of the truth of your last post regarding 'Cheryl the African'; education must, should, has to go hand in hand with contraception.

For a start an educated African Cheryl is less likely to be sold for 10 cows and more likely to understand how contraception works. Oh, and have the confidence to tell hubby to go get a vasectomy.

Poverty & environmental destruction is caused by population growth!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

All the poorest countries, countries with desertification and growing exploitation of the fragile environmnet have the highest birthrates... And it is THE CAUSE of poverty, not a RESULT of poverty.

SOURCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_fertility_rate
For a list of "fertility" rates by nation.

The highest fertility rates have the highest poverty.

Imagine, that our government had top build 5 time more schools, 5 times more hospitals, roads and somehow make 5 times more farm land each generation? Our wealthy economies would simply collapse! Our National parks would be opened up for food farming to fend off starvation...

But that is the burden we allow the poor countries to suffer from...
Rwanda's growth means that every 25 years, there are 5 times more people!

Why is it 'not acceptable' to talk about 'population management' as the solution to poverty? The people who oppose population management are sadists, guilty of causing immeasurable pain and death. (now I'm getting dramatic!)

THe western World is nto guilty.. quite the opposite... we are committing genocide against ourselves. The bottom of the list is western nations who are failing to produce children.

These are the most feminist nations... If education of women reduces fertility, then today's strong feminist institutions cause low fertility.

PartTimeParent@pobox.co

Fractelle, of course education goes along with availability
of family planning services, I have never claimed anything
else. Fact is both are required.

It seems to me however, that the Fractelles and Cheryls
of this world, don't seem to have a clue as to realities
of the situation in places like Africa. Fortunately I lived
in Africa for a number of years and let me tell you, things
work quite differently to what you are used to.

Of course vasectomies should be available to men, I fully
agree.

But if "Fractelle the African" was raped, a common
as chips happening in Africa and also a tool of war, hubby's
vasectomy is not going to do her one hell of a lot of good.

In parts of the Congo, crimes like murder carry a 7 day jail
sentence, if anyone is ever prosecuted, and rape is hardly
considered as a crime. Quite a differnt world to the one
that our rich Western women are used to.

So my point is that the best way to empower African women
is to give them the tools available, in terms of both education
and family planning "equipment", to be able to make decisions
about their lives and how many children they actually want to have.

Green labor and their lazy left wing cohorts infatuated with zero population growth is directly proportional to their inability to create tangible results outside taxation. Big brothers missing sisters.

Yabby (sweety, darling, sweety)

Your posts concerning third world women tend to concentrate on contraception. You rarely mention education except in passing.

BTW Even Yabby the Aussie could be raped. Sexual abuse is common in all countries being as it is about power.

Oh well done, Dallas - you have just contributed the most pointless post I have come across on OLO.

Candide, thank you..., now back to the zero sums game!

If you look at the website suggested by PartTime, from 2000 to 2008, the global average fertility rate for women dropped from 2.80 to 2.61 or 6.7%. Extrapolate that reduction on into the future and, within 28 years, global population will have stopped rising thanks to a fertility rate just under 2.11 which is the parents' replacement rate.
Michael Lardelli presumably calls himself a scientist, yet in his article he has chosen to ignore the evidence which shows that population is definitely NOT the problem. The issue is, was and always will be the standard of living (not necessarily our quality of life) that the world's population will aspire to. Why would 200 million Indonesians want to migrate to Australia? For the economic opportunities that our system of government, parliament, judiciary and enforcement allow people to achieve.
Lardelli's article is shallow and only a Pauline Hanson type would see merit in it - simple, easy to understand, ignorant of the evidence and just plain wrong. No wonder the Greens remain politically irrelevant

Bernie, what do you make of these?

http://www.unfpa.org/pds/trends.htm

or

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm

Do you think the UNFPA or the IIASA have it wrong as well?

I don't think Lardelli's article is shallow, I am not a fan of Pauline Hanson and I am not a Green - so where do you place me?

Q&A, there are no absolute certainties on dates or population size, etc, whenever dealing with human growth rates - there are simply too many variables. I'm expecting global population to reach about 9 billion before its stabilises about the middle of the century and then starts to decline. My major concern is the damage that will be done to the environment between now and then (whenever 'then' occurs) and the damage that will continue on for the next few decades as people strive to raise their standards of living. By focusing as Lardelli does on controlling population (which only Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao have done successfully), we're ignoring many important issues over which we do actually have some control.

Thanks Bernie, I agree (mostly) with your last post.

It really is a conundrum. In my opinion, we can have some influence. The population 'issue' can be resolved (it will take time) by education ... of men in general and women in particular, especially in the developing world. Of course, this is easier said than done - power, control and religious subservience is a powerful motivator for 'business as usual'.

When all is said and done, whether you believe in AGW or not - we have finite natural resources. We (humanity) have to find a more sustainable way of doing things (I for one will not disrespect others for wanting what we in the 'developed' world already have) - we just have to find a way of doing it better.

Cheers

Q&A I didn't think much of your two URLs , they should have stuck to chess . We shouldn't worry about population , ethically it is none of our business .

Science will look after us .

The environment has always been malleable . How many Dinosaurs have you seen lately .

5 children will deliver 2 movers and 3 passengers , they will all be needed .

57 years ago a farmer in the Murray Valley needed 10 acres to market 900 kg of tomatoes , the Dutch today do it in one square meter .

We hosted a exchange Student from Europe she was amazed that we chucked all our veg trimmings into the garbage , her family breed rabbits in the carport , there is nothing in their garden the rabbits can't eat . If the bunnies can't eat it you don't grow it .

All we need to do in Oz , is master water desalination . To easy , just hijack natures patent .

Our EXCH Student gets up at 5:30 AM is at School at 7 and is back home at 12.30 PM .

If you dig up a cubic meter of farm dirt in Germany 2 to 3 thousand worms do the same in Oz 10 to 20 !

We don't have a population problem do we ?

Shaz while you make some good points, technology will only get us so far and in fact it has got us to where we are now but technology does not always keep up with need nor does it always have the answers.

I think most of us agree that resources are limited we might perhaps disagree on what figure constitutes overpopulation.

Whatever we think, population is an issue that is being overlooked and needs to be included in any discussion that concerns the environment.

Bernie Masters wrote: "By focusing as Lardelli does on controlling population (which only Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao have done successfully), ...

Garbage!

Many civil harmonious and democratic societies have proven perectly cable of controlling their populations for thousands of years.

Anyway, if who understoods anything about Chinese history, know sthat Mao bequeathed to his successors a massive overpopulation problem, which necesitated the adoption of the "one child" policy.

Bernie Masters continued: "... we're ignoring many important issues over which we do actually have some control.

Who, other than Bernie Masters, is ignoring any important issue?

I certainly don't ignore, for example, per capita consumption of resources,

Why is total population also not a critically important issue?

---

I will be standing as a candidate in the Queensland state elections, largely against population growth, although I ma also concerned about other issues such as privatisation, democracy and accountability.

For more information see "Why I am contesting the Queensland state elections as an independent" at http://candobetter.org/node/1121
Contents:
End privatisation - stop the liquidation of Queensland,
End Queensland Government encouragement of population growth,
Demand action against homelessness and housing unaffordability, Labor's coal exports - a crime against this and future generations of humanity,
Why a vote for me is not be a wasted vote,
To intending Labor voters:,
To intending Green voters:,
To intending Liberal National Party voters:,
What you can do.

See also http://candobetter.org/QldElections http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

Good Morning Pelican

Shaz while you make some good points, technology will only get us so far and in fact it has got us to where we are now but technology does not always keep up with need nor does it always have the answers.

Pelican ; Do you mean Humans don't keep up with Tech ?

I think most of us agree that resources are limited we might perhaps disagree on what figure constitutes overpopulation.

Pelican ; What resources are we agreeing limited ?
Are you suggesting a ratio, Population : Environmental Resources, in OZ water would solve any problem .

Whatever we think, population is an issue that is being overlooked and needs to be included in any discussion that concerns the environment.

Pelican;
You would agree that Polar Bears , Oak Trees and Crickets are part of the environ why do you exclude Humans ?

More bad news in "We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction" at http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22181.htm :

All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth.

...

We are experiencing an accelerated obliteration of the planet's life-forms-an estimated 8,760 species die off per year-because, simply put, there are too many people. Most of these extinctions are the direct result of the expanding need for energy, housing, food and other resources. The Yangtze River dolphin, Atlantic gray whale, West African black rhino, Merriam's elk, California grizzly bear, silver trout, blue pike and dusky seaside sparrow are all victims of human overpopulation.

...

The overpopulated regions of the globe will ravage their local environments, cutting down rainforests and the few remaining wilderness areas, in a desperate bid to grow food. And the depletion and destruction of resources will eventually create an overpopulation problem in industrialized nations as well. The resources that industrialized nations consider their birthright will become harder and more expensive to obtain. Rising water levels on coastlines, which may submerge coastal nations such as Bangladesh, will disrupt agriculture and displace millions, who will attempt to flee to areas on the planet where life is still possible. The rising temperatures and droughts have already begun to destroy crop lands in Africa, Australia, Texas and California. The effects of this devastation will first be felt in places like Bangladesh, but will soon spread within our borders. Footprint data suggests that, based on current lifestyles, the sustainable population of the United Kingdom-the number of people the country could feed, fuel and support from its own biological capacity-is about 18 million. This means that in an age of extreme scarcity, some 43 million people in Great Britain would not be able to survive.

...

---

Anyone who denies that overpopulation is a serious problem is as dangerous as any religious fanatic and should be certified.

---

In case anyone has missed it, my article "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8485&page=0 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8485&page=0 may be of interest.

---

Excellent article, BTW, Michael.

Morning shaz

Both scenarios are apt in relation to technology. Sometimes technology cannot keep up with human activity - we are faced with a problem (water shortage) and then seek solutions rather than predicting a future problem and seeking a solution before it becomes a problem.

And sometimes humans cannot keep up with speedy advances in technology - like the issues raised by the wonders of the Internet and the information age and how we might now cope with some of the effects such as cyberbullying etc.

What resources limited? Well water for a start - too many people = more water restrictions where water is scarce.

Forests are another resource - if we cut down faster than the rate we can regrow then wood becomes scarce.

"You would agree that Polar Bears , Oak Trees and Crickets are part of the environ why do you exclude Humans ?"

Shaz I am not sure what you mean by that. All of those things are part of the environment as are humans. Polar Bears and oak trees aren't cutting down forests faster than replacing them such as the case in the Amazon and the Indonesian palm industry.

It is because I am human that I seek restraint on rampant consumerism and a re-think of how we manage our renewable and non-renewable resources. I would prefer my children inherit a habitable planet as I know you do too.

Overpopulation is just a GFC- Global-Femeconomic-Crisis consequence.

Behind every corporate-ghoul is the desire to leverage everything not-nailed-down; get more money, women, sex.

Behind every feminist is the NEED to fulfill reproductive chemisty with at least one child, another two to stop hubby getting more than 1 bang a week and a few more kids for the legal/power play if she meets a nicer fella or wants to ditch the 'B'.

Current THERMODYNAMIC parametrisations support femeconomic-growth but as oil runs dry the bottom will fall out of Global femeconomics and female-slavitude will return quick enough to knock the panty-hose off a behemoth.

Since Victorian times, marriage has been a con where a man essentially falls in love (lust) with someone he hates, signs a contract to that effect, even though he stopped believing in Santa at age 8, buys her a house and gets financially castrated by the local judiciary. The Judiciary works for the state which works to satisfy corporate ghouls' need for bigger markets: more kids, more divorces, more $turnover. Women are bigger consumers& they have been favoured by IRON-ceilinged corporate-ghouls for the last century or so. That ironocally makes women the biggest enviro-killers. Yet they are the first to protest for the environment!

Cynical? The proof is in HISTORY. Women have always risen to social prominence only to have their 'equal-rights' abolished as overpopulation require societies to protect themselves from what is essentially an amorphous-breeding-machine. To assume that education and wealth give women the power to 'family=plan' is like assuming that educating & enriching 'Jaws' would make him a nice fish. Ancient barbarians weren't necessarily bad people. They were survivors and that means WE carry their genes today.

It helps me little to elucidate this. I'm not mysogenistic. But the fortunes of GFC women are about to nosedive all-the-same.

I believe women can take 'personal-responsibility' for their needs for the sake of OUR >20year future. But it matters little. Time, human-numbers & dwindled-resources are marching to a critical point. You only have to look in a history book to see what is going to .......

Wow.

A couple of fallacies and misconceptions have been articulated in some of the posts even by those contributors who clearly see population growth as a major problem facing Australia and the world.

Fallacy/misconception No.1: Australia's fertility rate of 1.7% is less than the death rate (Cheryl). So what? Our births exceeded deaths by a substantial amount (in 2007 by 147 000). Its the birth rate vs the death rate that is important. It will take a very long time for the 1.7% fertility rate to result in less births than deaths in this country.

Fallacy/misconception No.2: Population growth is a prerequisit for economic growth. THIS IS WRONG. For the richer countries there is no statistical correlation between population growth and per capita GDP growth and for the countries at the bottom of the economic wrung the correlation is a negative one.

A third point that needs to be made is that for Australia anyhow there is probably not yet a need to introduce draconian measures to force reductions in fertility rates. We need though at the very least to discourage rather than encourage more children. Our governments are sending out quite the wrong signals. But in countries such as China where the overpopulation problem is already so bad draconian measures of one sort or the other may be a legitimate option... the lesser of two evils you could say.

Naturally there is a great deal we can and should also do to reduce immigration rates.

Taking a balanced intake of immigrants is fair and reasonable, especially from those countries in great distress.

Many, many perhaps most Australians and western nations far eat & drink more than they need, have a look around you and you will see that is obvious.
Self control of food intake and waste will go a long way to alleviating food shortages.

Tedson

Don't confuse refugees with immigrants. Our refugee intake is only about 13000 pa, only 7% of NET immigration.
We could treble our refugee intake and end up with more people emigrating from the country than immigrating too it.

Now wouldn't that by nice?

Fractelle dear, sweety pie, honeybunch,

Yup, anyone could be raped, men too. Men have a slight advanage
however, they are not left holding any babies after the rapes.

Rape is far more common where people can get away with it, because
of a lack of law and order enforcement. Africa is just such a
place.

Yes I mention contraception and family planning services. I
don't spell out the education part of those services, for to
me that is common knowledge. The family planning clinics
in Africa that were shut down by el Presidente Bush, when
he decided that abstinence education was a better option,
focussed on a number of things, they did not simply throw
packets of condoms or pills into the air.

But ok, it seems that you don't know and need it spelled out
for you, fair enough. Education is part of the role of
family planning clinics in the third world, but they need
funding by the UN, by Govts and by kind private philanthropists
such as Warren Buffett and others.

Our own Govts have yet to show any kind of empathy towards
the plight of these women, or their problems with just
obtaining the basics required for family planning. So they
keep popping em out, if they want to or not. All very
sad really.

Mr Masters. Can you tell me were you got your information from.

EVO

Oh! Watch how everything moves.

Thats the key. Smile.

EVO2

EVO2, an earlier post by PartTime provided this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_fertility_rate which is where I got my numbers from for the fertility rate decline from 2000 to 2008. Is this the information you were asking me about?

Yabby

The reason your credibility is in doubt, if that you frequently respond to female posters in a condescending manner eg 'African Cheryl' as if we are ignorant. You claim to be concerned about female rights but you do not treat us as equals with your derogatory style - in many posts you refer to female contributors to OLO as "bored housewives".

You know nothing about how well travelled or educated any of the contributors to OLO are. If you mentioned empowerment and education of women in third world countries as often as you disparage the Catholic church (which, I agree is in need of criticism) you would appear to have a little more credibility.

You don't treat female posters to OLO with any respect, so don't whinge when we challenge you. As it happens I don't agree with Cheryl at all and I do agree with you on the topic of contraception but I object to being treated in a gratuitous manner by you or anyone else for that matter.

In conclusion, I believe you are more concerned with overpopulation than you are with the well-being and emancipation of third world women.

*You don't treat female posters to OLO with any respect,*

Fractelle dear, respect is earned, not given on the basis of
owning certain genitals. I am the first to congratulate posters,
if I think that their post was particularly good. As it happens,
many of those have been females. What your last post showed
is nothing more then the chips on your shoulder which you seem
to carry.

I judge people by their posts and as the evidence showed, Cheryl
clearly did not understand the real circumstances of African
women. Trying to get her to empathise with the real conditions
and plight of women in the third world, was a valid point to make.

If you don't like my style of posting, well I can't help that.
I don't post to please the sensitive petals of this world.
I make points of reason, you are free to dispute my points,
as is anyone else.

*The reason your credibility is in doubt*

Well it might be to you dear, but it certainly is not to me.
I stand and fall by the substance of my arugments, not by some
touchy, feely intuition, which you seem to rely on.

You are of course free to challenge me, but don't be amazed
if I respond accordingly.

We are not in the old ducks knitting club here, but a forum
where free and open debate is encouraged and so it should be.

When are we having a public debate on immigration and population growth?

Our Government is factoring in a population growth of 48 per cent between 1990 and 2020 to meet the 5% reduction of emissions by 2020. This massive increase in population is not due to the great strength in the loins of Australians (we have the same fertility rate as most European countries), but simply because our Federal Government is running one of the biggest national immigration programs in the world. If it weren't for these massive levels of immigration, Australia's population would have stabilised by now.

As one of the planet's highest per capita carbon emitters, surely our obligation to cut back means we should not be deliberately increasing our numbers? Businesses and land developers benefit from a continual demand for goods are services but most of the population is disadvantaged and have their quality of life reduced. More people means additional environmental impacts as more people demand and compete for limited natural resources. While Australians are encouraged to live sustainably, and become more conservative in their water and power usage, our government boasts of our high population growth rate, almost entirely due to the massive number of people they continue to import year after year! Surely these efforts are contradictory?

Isn’t it time we realised that immigration-driven population growth is prohibiting our ability to reduce carbon emissions, not to mention ensure a high standard of living for future generations of Australians? Just because we have always had a high immigration program it doesn’t mean it has to continue. The rationale for high immigration no longer exists. The economies of scale argument died along with our domestic manufacturing industry. The other old argument that we need a larger population to stave off a potential Asian invasion seems downright silly these days given that most of our immigrants now come from Asia. That's a bit like 1930s Poland attempting to defend itself from Nazi German invasion by importing millions of Germans.

It's time that Australia ended its mass immigration program and repudiated the "growth for growth's sake" ideology.

Yes you are quite right Bernie Masters, I don't know how I missed that, thanks.

Breeding people because of fear! We the human race have been doing that for centuries, but now everyone's almost got a nuke in there backyard and all we do is put up some signs saying, Keep Out! or we shall blow your crappy little island off the face of the earth, that's if they thought or even looked like being unneighborly.

This is one of the benefits of having a few firecrackers in the backyard and with that, there will be no invasions, at least until the U.S drop the ball, then there maybe some concerns.

I don't like to say it, but there are a lot of Asians on the planet now days and there genetics don't quite reach the level of Atlantis which was clearly the ancient past of now in there billions and taking our ideas and making them better and so on. Evolution favours them, being indigenous and all, we have domesticated a number of species on this planet to date which ever way you look at it.

The mad dog will only fear the stick!

I guess we might just be thinking about holding one.

You know some do bite the hand that has fed them.

A little caution to the wind I thinks.

Just a thought.

EVO

Yabby

I guess that in your little world women never earn your respect then. You are sounding very like old Col on this.

Let me make this clear, I don't care what you personally think of me. I do care that women are given equal opportunity to speak out and not treated with disdain and condescension for simply having an opinion.

As I said I do not agree with Cheryl and I do agree with you so far as contraception needs to be freely available for women AND men in third world countries. However, WITHOUT education all the condoms in the world won't make any difference.

To give you a feel of being treated with condescension, I deliberately referred to you in diminutive terms (sweety, darling etc) I rarely do this, preferring to address the argument or the topic. However, you use pejorative terms towards any female poster who happens to either disagree with you (like Cheryl) or challenge you regarding your credibility of opinion - as I did.

Therefore, if you can't take it then don't dish it out in the first place. Critique my opinions by all means - but when you descend into personal attacks you lose any value your arguments may have had.

I can have disagreements with other posters that don't devolve into a slanging match simply because we have stuck to the topic. Challenge yourself for a change, refute my argument without resorting to derision.

*To give you a feel of being treated with condescension, I deliberately referred to you in diminutive terms*

ROFL, sounded more like terms of endearment to me :)
I thought it was quite amusing and had a bit of a chuckle.

*Therefore, if you can't take it then don't dish it out in the first place.*

I can't take it Fractelle? Speak for yourself lol, not for me.
I remind you that hardly a poster has had more crap thrown at him
on OLO then I have, on the various animal welfare threads. There
arn't many names that I haven't been called. Ok, so be it, I am
not a sensitive petal as you are.

Yes I have called some of them housewives. For some of the posters
throwing the most insults, had absolutaly no qualifications in the
fields where they claimed to know something. Not even practical
experience. Zilch, just blessed hearts. Pointing out their
qualifications, is an extremely valid point to make.

You might see the refenence to "housewife" as a derogatory term,
I certainly don't, for without their skills in that field, our
houses would be in chaos. So the job they do is highly valued,
but that does not mean that they have experience in anything
from neuro surgery to livestock husbandry.

In this case I have once again made the point clear, that
"family planning services" includes education. If that goes
over your head, well so be it, I can't help that.

Yabby,

Fractelle's fragile man, leave her alone. She sees a lot of things on gender lines. To her the world is full of oafish misogynist sexist pigs desperate to put her down just because she's a woman. So be real careful with your language, and treat her nicer than you would the male posters.

You might not see 'housewife' as derogatory, and neither do I, but we're feminists who see the role many women have fulfiled in our society as valuable. Being a feminist, you might want to treat women and men posters equally as well. But Fractelle doesn't see things this way.

You might think you're treating her the same as any other poster, but that's where you're going wrong. To disagree with a woman is to be a bully and an abusive man trying to silence her opinion. She sees it her duty to back up other female posters who have arguments with men too, as a man arguing with a female is disrespectful, or somehow an unfair battle. In fact she can tell that if you argue with a woman, you probably call them "B & T's'" (though I'm not sure what that means).

Anyway, just thought I'd give you a heads up. She's really sensitive about it.

I'm really glad you're not a misogynist, KAEP. Watch out for Yabby and Houellebecq, though.
They may lead you astray.

Ahem! Isn't this thread, if that's what it is called, supposed to be about the population problem. Stop your bickering you two! You should be allies not antagonists on this problem.

A place the size of au with 25 mil or so overpopulated. That is a very narrow view of australia. Because there's only standing room on Bondi beach the country is overpopulated. You need to have a holiday in the country. Where would au be without immigration. We have women that are more interested in working, than having kids. They would rather spend their entire earnings on lifestyle ornaments, rather than staying home and keeping house. Au is big enough to be 10 countries, I can not understand why you say we are overpopulated.

slug,

'We have women that are more interested in working, than having kids'

And men? I think it takes two to make kids. Obviously men don't give birth, but it's not as if there are all these men searching in vain for a woman who wants to pop out 6 kids. Families decide together how many kids they want (unless those rascally woman sabotage the contraception the couple have decided on, which lends more to the opposite that men don't want to have the kids).

This population 'problem' is something that will work itself out. The evil capitalist goal of continuous growth will assure countries like China and India will develop a middle class and have less babies like us. Then more of us middle class countries who have the luxury of tut-tutting those naughty polluting poor countries who make all our cheap consumer goods might just finally realise we have some responsibility for the pollution. Enter the Church of Tree Hugging, and the yuppie communities all over the world will compete with each other to see who smells more, to prove their non-showering holier than thou green credentials

Apologies Kulu I do not normally argue off topic - so steel yourself for my final comment.

Houellebecq

You being such a newbie here and all, you can't help being ignorant.

Yabby

You state that people must earn your respect. When does this actually start? When you first meet someone? What if they are waiting for you to earn their respect? And what does this have to do with my comment that you rant on and on about contraception but never address the fact that education and empowerment of women has demonstrably reduced populations?

I have an image of Yabby in Africa tossing out handfuls of condoms which are grabbed by the local kids who discover the joys of balloons and water bombs.

http://www.informaction.org/cgi-bin/gPage.pl?menu=menua.txt&main=population_causes.txt

"The education and empowerment of women is vital in reducing poverty and overpopulation. The health and size of the population is related to our behaviour and, in particular, the behaviour of women. Knowledge and skills will enable women to find work and earn money. Economically independent women tend to have fewer children, and these children are inclined to be healthier and better educated.

Better results have been achieved when governments and NGOs target women in developing countries and invest greater effort in their education. Money given to a poor woman is more likely to be utilised for the nutrition and health of the family. Women that have been given the opportunity to earn an income, have put the money to better use. When more effort has been put into improving the health of women, this has had the effect of benefiting the children. The education of women is a major factor in stabilising human population numbers.

At present, there are insufficient numbers of schools or healthcare facilities in many developing countries. For example, in parts of Africa only 56% of people are literate and only 5% receive high school or secondary education. ......

........ If women are assured that their children’s chances of survival are similar to those in developed countries, they may be less likely to have more children."

*I have an image of Yabby in Africa tossing out handfuls of condoms which are grabbed by the local kids who discover the joys of balloons and water bombs.*

That is the problem Fractelle, its all in your imagination.

I've done this topic to death, years ago now, as part of my arguments
against the Catholic Church. If you read up a bit on the topic,
information from UNFPA, Planned Parenthood, the Gutmacher Institute,
Marie Snopes and many others, you will find that increasing
resources were spent on setting up family planning clinics for
third world women, all over the place. Women could go there
for help, information, supplies, etc. This empowered them for
the first time in their lives to make their own decisions, even
if their husbands disagreed.

Hundreds of millions of third world women use no contraception at
all, as nothing is available. The Catholic Church and once Bush
became Prez, the religious fundies, fought this all the way and
made sure that funds were cut off, the day Bush took office.
Thankfully Obama is now turning that around.

Yes, educating women generally makes a great deal of difference
and is a noble cause, but that is going to take decades, a hundred
years, whatever. What some of these women want is a solution
tomorrow. All the surveys that I have seen, show that when
asked if they would use family planning if available, most would.

Lots of things will help women in the third world, from micro
credit onwards.

Given limited funding, one has to prioritise. Educating all
third world women to the standard of Western women is not going
to happen overnight and nobody is putting their hand up for that
kind of money.

Empowering women to decide how many kids they plan and want to
have, can be done relatively cost effectively and is a quite
realistic goal, achievable today.

Whilst some women are forced to have 8-9 kids, even if they don't
want them, they have no chance at all

Michael Dwyer,

"Overloading Australia" by Mark O'Connor and William Lines came out late last year.

The book is discussed in the following OLO thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8485&page=0

Does anyone know whether Labor has repealed the ruling insisted upon by Brian Harradine when he had the balance of power which prohibited foreign aid funding to any organization that gave advice to woman on abortion - a really retrograde step in my opinion if ever there was one.

My understanding is that they have not done "an Obama" and scrapped the rule. I may be wrong though.