Horus,

The argument that you say that 'some green group actually bought' has been strongly advanced by the leading Australian economist Geoff Carmody, including in an article published in OLO on 30 March (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8733). Geoff thinks the argument is fair and reasonable too.

LanC-The article you refer to by Geoff Carmidy, states-They badly need to steer away from a production model to a consumption model.

Remembering the disaster it was for the consumers in this country when petrol prices rose,would the Greens be so keen to accept this idea if they suddenly found it affected their personal household budgets the way the petrol prices did. That's the trouble with all this green house omissions and carbon footprint talk. Everybody is all for it as long as it doesn't directly affect THEIR job or THEIR income. The other fellow over there should be the one to make the sacrifice.
That's why the only way to reduce carbon footprint is really only through keeping population explosions under control.

Fred Pearce-Hardin's metaphor had a certain ruthless logic. What he omitted to mention was that each of the people in the lifeboat was occupying 10places whereas the people in the water only wanted one each.

I would like to alter your alteration to what he said, to say that what he also omitted to mention was that if you let the poor people in the water onto the boats and they kept on having heaps more childen than the people already in the boats they would very soon be taking up many more seats.

My alteration to your view of this still makes what Hardin says applicable. That is- If they let the poor people in the water on board there would be chaos and all would drown- therefore the people in the rich lifeboats had a duty to their species(I prefer the word family and children) to be selfish - to keep the poor out.

How about that deceptively simple relation, applicable when you reach the limit of your resources, "more people = more expensive and less per person". This is happening with water in the capital cities, where all the cheaply obtainable water is used, leaving only restrictions, and far more expensive options for increasing supply.

Maybe population growth isn't the panacea it is portrayed as?