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?