"If though, you believe that humans are more than the sum of their parts, then you have to reject the much of their thinking."

If humans were more than the sum of their parts then WAR would have been abolished centuries past. For those who can't read, War is flourishing from Somali to Nth Korea.

The fact is humans are essentially THERMODYNAMIC machines, and as we have seen in the HISTORY of this planet, everytime human numbers outstrip critical resources, WAR occurs.

Where will Mr King be when the global-war he is promoting via profligate indulgence of women seeking proxy-power through children, commences?
In a cave-of-his-mind no doubt, counting all his Gold and Glory.

There are advantages in viewing humans as Thermodynamic systems. Thermodynamic problems have advanced human satisfying-for-all solutions. The humanity, social-worker solution watches warrior children and their power-to-weight-ratio mother addicts die, all with the greatest sympathy and uniquely human emotion of course.

What this means is that equal-rights for women PLUS unfettered reproductive rights is a CONTRADICTION. What we have here is a CATASTROPHIC thermodynamic solution to human overpopulation: WAR.
The mindlessness represented here is as old as time. We ARE on the verge of a natural, calamitous reduction in human numbers. I mean, does Mr King really believe that Kim will not use a Nuke now that he has recommenced refining bomb grade material?

What is the alternative THERMODYNAMIC solution that keeps all our hard earned knowledge in tact and not burnt on pyres by zeit-Geist, Hitlerian ignorance, turning the human race back to year zero?

Think hard my pretties ....

Cheryl asks "what do the Greens think"?

Such is not a real question but a rhetorical device.

Specifically which person or persons is she referring to?

Names please---and lots of them.

What about my name for starters.

There are hundreds of millions of people on the planet who are in one way or another sympathetic to Green ideas.

Meanwhile the Green Domain was here first.

We human beings are totally embedded and dependent on the Green Domain and ALL of its processes and multiple feed-back loops for our well-being and survival.

My favourite Spiritual Philosopher points that we humans have been waging a war on the environment, or the Green Domain, for a very long time, and that if we dont change our collective modus operandi very soon, then the planetary ecosystems will collapse---or enact its revenge on us.

Put in another way, He points out that we are rapidly approaching a Tipping Point.

Put in another way Gaia is a vast totally integrated system in which everything IS inter-related and in which human activity does have major causative affects.

Like all integrated systems Gaia has a movement to self-rightening balance

The system that is Gaia is "governed" by the laws of physics. And like all systems, large or small, always moves, sooner or later, or in one way or another, to restore an energetic balance to the over-all system.

Green or gone, the choice is ours.

Ah! You're a LaRouchian, mil-observer!

I've often wondered why OLO wasn't crawling with them.
Tell us how the all-powerful British royal family secretly controls the world. You believe that Queen Elizabeth controls the US military directly, yes?

I'm looking forward to this immensely.

"Well, it's not quite the conflagration I'd been banking on. Never mind, lads, same time tomorrow... we must get a winner one day." - Peter Cook, Beyond the Fringe.

You know, you've got to give credit to the Malthusian, hippy Jeremiahs who've been predicting the End-Of-Civlization-As-We-Know-It for the past 40 years and more: They're tenacious little beggars.

No matter how often they're proved wrong, they just patiently reset their doomsday clocks another decade or so ahead. Meanwhile, civilization as we know it just keeps rollin' along.

Still, I will grant them this; although it is demonstrable that the Earth as a whole will be able to support the expected plateau of the human population in the next century or so, there are undoubtedly *regions* that are ill-suited to high population densities. Australia, I believe, is one of those. Our continent is quite geologically unique, and is for the most part characterised by poor, ancient soils.

So there is perhaps a case to be made for stabilising, and probably reducing, Australia's population. However, this doesn't need such draconian measures as one-child policies. Reduced immigration - on a strictly non-racial basis, I might hasten to add - would more than take care of that.

But saints preserve us from the profoundly misanthropic eco-fascism wing of the "deep greens", and their puritanical self-righteousness: "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis

The BBC "World Debate", had a debate about the topic of a global
sustainable population, just yesterday.

Eliya Zulu, the head of the Union of African Population Studies
comfirmed what I have been claiming on OLO. Women in Uganda
etc don't choose to have 7 kids. Usually its a lack of family
planning hardware that is the problem. Many people just can't
afford them.

The head of the Optimum Population Trust made a similar point.

None are suggesting forcing women to have less children. What
they are suggesting is that women be given that choice, something
which hundreds of millions in the third world do not have right now.

The fact is that people will have sex and if they have sex without
family planning aids, they will have children that they don't
want.

Why is this so frigging hard to get through to some of you people ?

.

mil-ob wrote, "[Cm'on dagget - waiting, waiting, ...]"

Actually, mil-ob, I was waiting for you to respond to my arguments in the "Federal government and China" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2644&page=9#60282

Of course I won't be holding my breath waiting and I know not to expect any better from you on this forum.

---

The article, itself, is, of course, abysmal as others have pointed out.

The fact that there are still people who are prepared to defend the idiocy of population growth must be a source of bewilderment to many thinking people.

If anyone wants to understand what anyone could possibly hope to gain from what must necessarily make each one of us, on average, poorer, and which threatens our environment and our future, can I suggest that you read "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" of 9 Feb 09 at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8485&page=0 at which is based upon Sheila Newman's 2002 Master thesis downloadable from http://candobetter.org/sheila