"what must necessarily make each one of us, on average, poorer, and which threatens our environment and our future"

Sorry, daggett, but history has self-evidently proved you wrong.

The world's population is not increasing exponentially and without end, and we are all, on average, getting better off all the time.

There will be regional exceptions, of course, but taken globally, the whole "Soylent Green" scenario of "Limits to growth" is a crock.

"It’s curious that the most striking manifestation of the loathing they have for every human can be seen in the idea that we need a significant reduction in the number of human beings from people who purport to love nature."

And it's curious that anyone who purports to love nature can promote the notion that allowing a massive overabundance of one species is the best way to preserve it.

To anyone who doesn't think population growth is a problem, here is a challenge. Specify the highest human population that you think Earth can handle without society collapsing - call it P2. Halve that figure and call the result P1. Now -- since the human population currently doubles every fifty years -- please explain: what do you think will happen in the fifty years between P1 and P2 that will somehow avert catastrophe?

Whatever it is, I can guarantee that it will involve a lot more violence and suffering than encouraging people to exercise a bit of voluntary birth control right now.

"-- the world's population is not increasing exponentially ---." (Clownfish).
That is pretty much of the same flavour as the article itself.

The Population reference Bureau 2008 Data Sheet estimated that the world's population was indeed increasing. The rate of that increase, 1.2 per cent, an exponential rate. It was one which would - if continued - result in doubling numbers in less than sixty years. Of course it cannot carry on indefinitely - nature will take care of that if society does not make some effort to at least give women across the world the right, as Yabby points out, to control their fertility. Better that than have the Vatican and people like the author of the article impose their demands upon them.

Not to far in the near future.

Two country doctors out in the hills of West Virginia were discussing the population explosion in the world. One physician says, "Why, Bubba, thiseyer crazy birth thang isa gettin' so bad that perty soon, they ain't gonna be room for ever'body! There'sa gonna be standin' room only on this here planet!"The other doctor replied, "Heck, that sure oughta slow 'em down a bit!"

Just a little joke. Please continue.

EVO

colinsett,
A very well researched contribution!

Clownfish wrote, "Sorry, daggett, but history has self-evidently proved you wrong.

"The world's population is not increasing exponentially and without end, and we are all, on average, getting better off all the time."

You are forgetting that the improvements in living standards, to the extent they have occurred for the hugely increased human population of the world, are at the expense of the consumption of humankind's finite endowment of natural capital, principally fossil fuels and metals, but also, soil, rainforest, fishing stocks, and bore water.

Once those are exhausted, it is not known how the earth can support any more than the population that existed prior to the start of industrialisation, that is around 500 million at most.

I am not saying that it can't be done, but to not act urgently to stabilise the world's population which is now over 13 times that figure, when no-one can explain how, is unbelievable folly.

(I tried to explain this to mil-obfuscator in the "What's wrong with 'Islamophobia'" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8326&page=32#135935 but it seems to have gone right over his head.)