Well said Tim! So much of Australian immigration policy can be seen as the result of the influence that the major developers have over both main political parties - paid for by huge donations. No surprise also the government's response to the GFC - build, build, build, to keep our corporate donors happy. So now it is not enought that they ruin all our children's futures with a mad immigration programme - they are giving away my tax dollars as well to the developers. So much for democracy!

What gets me is the smiles all round when farmland gets turned into housing estates. Living breathing soil is covered in energy guzzling concrete, glass and steel. Pipes connect finite supplies of water and gas. Wires connect largely fossil fuelled electricity. Soon the driveway is adorned with a large fuel guzzling car. Yet we will need that land and energy input to grow food as farming becomes increasingly difficult. When petrol becomes expensive again the cost of a long commute to a CBD job may become prohibitive.

The construction industry should now focus on consolidating the built environment we already have. That includes green makeovers with insulation, smart metering, solar water heaters and so on.

Almost every problem that we face on this planet today can be directly or indirectly related to over population. This is unfortunately encouraged by Western governments that almost without exception subsidise their communities to breed. Religions also play no small part as they don't want to fall behind in their influence. The more "souls" they have, the greater their power.

Obviously technology plays a part in minimising bad outcomes in the short term, but even technology has its limits as we can see by casting our eyes around the world. Population increase has to stop sometime but persuading people that we live on a finite planet when all countries are committed to never ending expansion, is a hard task.

despite many of your quotes..clearly comming from os,..the sellout of the green..'lobby'..seems to be a universal constant...

clearly the next wave of green is only a sheen over the same old multinationals adopting the green mantra to shepard in their new carbon tax deception

the key seems to be to get consumers[and chase out any creators into low wage states]...the housing situation dosnt transcribe to australia[mainly because we have a huge middle class importation comming

as our skilled workers go os..and we steal the trained os..middle classes..willing to work under the adverse conditions we place on our comunity workers

this decentralisation of workforce due to absurd priced housing costs,has seen the workers needing to travel ever further into the suburbs if only to afford simple needs on the minimised wages, wages the immagrants gladly work for, but find just as hard to make ends meet

the real issue isnt really their wages #
but the life style their wages can afford

maybe its time for decentrlisation..[and many smaller units
not gross centralised powers but decentralised
not too big to fail

Population growth is the biggest threat to Australia, and that threat is there because Australian politicians of all persuasions have taken what Bob Carr described as the “lazy” way to sustain the economy.

All Australian governments have kept Australia as a lowly supplier of natural resources to much smarter countries that turn raw materials into consumer goods and sell them back to us. All Australian governments have allowed – perhaps even encouraged – manufacturers to leave Australia. We are now getting dangerously close to American-type dependence on people buying luxury goods from ever-increasing retail outlets for a huge part of our economy - hence the push for greater and greater population increases.

Australian governments now even rely on immigrants to provide the educated classes to run the country in the future because they have been too lazy and too uncaring to educate our own children who are rapidly becoming unemployable. Our ignorant ‘leaders’ laughed at the smartest politician Australia has ever had, Barry Jones, when he tried to push for a ‘clever’ Australia. Who can forget the sneering at his “spaghetti drawings” by his moronic colleagues, including those of his own party who are now in Government?

Australian Governments and the building industry are the villains. Nothing more need be said about the big building industry: they are there for profit, the more the better, and if they can con politicians (not very hard to do), who can blame them? But, there is no excuse for governments.

Continued...

...continued

Australian Governments of both parties are a disgrace. Howard’s attitude to education and the development of Australia as a knowledge nation not reliant on immigration is plain to see in Peter Wilkinson’s “The Howard Legacy”. His ‘tough’ attitudes were a blind for the real dirty work being done in universities selling visas to overseas students instead of producing our own educated elite. Rudd – well we can still watch what he is up to: importing even more people than Howard to spend, spend, and spend. The trouble is, most of them coming now can’t speak English well enough to get a job – if there were any jobs, and we all end up keeping them on the dole. Rudd is, however, determined to increased immigration, both legal and illegal.

Tim Murray’s reference to the buying of environment-driven NGO’s by governments and developers in Canada is interesting, but it must also be occurring here. How many of these high-profile environmentalists we have here are heard to talk about population sustainability these days? Tim Flannery was all mouth on the subject once. He thought that 13 million people about right for Australia. Since his Australian of the year award, he has not made a peep about population.

Given the power of big business, the money they give to political parties and, most of all, our elected dictatorships, there is not much chance of any change.

Australia, I’m sorry to say, is stuffed

Sorry people - can't see the problem.. if there is a problem the author has made no useful suggestions for fixing it. Property does drive a surprising amount of investment and politics in Australia, but hardly in the way the author suggests.
Population in and of itself does not present a problem. Agriculture is much more of a strain on land use, but that has arguably passed its peak in advanced countries. The reasons for this are complex but Australia (the US and the UK) is regenerating forest growth. Don't believe this? Look at the ABS stats on forest cover and cleared land. Admittedly the stuff regrowing might be plantations but it shows that the actual trends are far more complex than the author would have us believe.

Curmy old boy, I suggest you look at the balance sheets of all these dodgy companies involved in plantations. Almost without exception they are going to the wall and their plantations will end up being a wasteland.

David

A demographic pyramid scam. That’s exactly what our growthist economy that is based on rapid continuous population growth is.

It is benefiting a few rich and powerful people. But apart from that it is just providing the same average quality of life for ever-more people. Or actually, a now steadily declining average quality of life.

And it is all going to come to an almighty crunching halt sooner or later…probably sooner.

A very good article Tim Murray. And pertinent comments from Leigh and others.

.
So what do we do about it?

How on earth do we escape the trap engendered by the donations regime from the building industry and their associated big business buddies in various fields, to governments?

How do we make governments independent of the enormously powerful big business lobby?

How do we restore the baseline responsibility of governments?

These are the most important questions of our time

"We knew that the environmental NGOs were myopic, hypocritical, soft, politically correct and cowardly, but how many of us thought that they were so fundamentally corrupt?"

Damn those NGOs! And I thought they were feeding people. Now we're being fed rubbish the Unsustainable Unspeakable People put out.

This is anti-intellectual drivel. I thought King's article had knocked the wind out of their bio-sociological sails.

Of course real estate agents want you to buy land. That's what they do. By the logical of the Unsustainables everything we do is unsustainable, including NGOs, capitalism and having babies.

This smells like ratbaggery coming out of Adelaide Uni - is it Prosh Day? I'd better check the Unsustainables website. I wonder ...

Lugwig, the answer to your last three questions isn't an easy one. One Nation tried to address some of these problems and were soon quashed by big business who exploited the racist card. Lets not go back there!

Maybe what we need is an entirely new Australian political party. Lets call it the Australian People's Party. The APP would be answerable only to those who elected it, the Australian people. One of the first items on their agenda would be to make all political donations fully transparent so we can see who is paying the current parties huge bribes. I could go on with this all day long, but both time and space make that impossible.

Unfortunately, the APP would be extremely difficult to organise and expand. The current crop of politicians have been well and truly bought and sold and it wouldn't be easy to shift them from power. The APP would need to start slowly and build up a solid foundation, but it would take many years to become viable. As a planet, we don't have years to play around forming new parties to defeat those that are corrupt.

We're fast approaching the limits of the world's resources and without them, our future generations can only look forward to a miserable existence, if they survive at all! Oil has undoubtedly peaked and with it will come the peak of agricultural production. Since alternative means of energy is currently patchy at best, we'll fall back on dirty coal to keep the elites in comfort. Meanwhile, the general population will starve. As Leigh so eloquently put it..... Australia's stuffed!

A key part of the problem is that our culure has unconciously rejected the idea that "The economy was made for man, not man for the economy." So we run the country in a way that means that means that unemployment and all its associated ills will rise unless the economy keeps on growing above about 3%. In a "man made for the economy society" it doesn't really matter where the growth comes from. Sure, sometimes it comes from the growth of goods and services that really do improve quality of life. However, too often it comes from the growth of goods and services that only get sold because large swags of effort have been diverted to advertising this rubbish.

So can we go back to a society where the economy is made for man? For starters, it might help if we challenged the idea that unemployment has to rise if the economy fails to grow fast enough. What would happen, for example, if we shared the available work and all accepted a reduction in pay and hours worked as the correct response to reduced economic growth?

The business council will, of course say that sharing the work will cost a fortune, be impossible blah blah blah. However, I have managed workforces of over a hundred people in the mining indusry. When I thought about it, my conclusion was that it would have had little effect on my section, or the mine I worked at,if the government had insisted that we increase our workforce by 10% provided that pay per hour didn't change and management was allowed the flexibility to reduce average hours by 10% in ways that were appropriate to our situation. In reality we may actually have been better off since the flexibility would have allowed some efficiency gains and the workforce would have been less tired and jaded.

We need to discuss what we might do to get the economy back to serving man.

I think Alme is correct, we need a new political party that puts the interests of Australian people first. However I do not see this eventuating. Look how the two major parties colluded to bring One Nation down. That sort of opportunity comes along vary rarely and we did not take advantage of it. The media are in the pockets of the major parties and did not take up the major reforms proposed by ON. e.g. a new national bank and Citizen Initated Referenda and Zero net immigration.

Maybe someone will come along in future that has the ability to capture the peoples imagination but things may have to get decidedly bad before that happens. Don't forget that to counteract the resourses of the government and major parties, it would take an immence amount of financial resourses.

There may still be time for Aus but I think Britain and many European countries have past the time when recovery is possible. We wil see a decline in the living standards and violence/unrest in all countries.

We should really fear for the future of our grandkids and be thankfull for the good years that we have enjoyed. Pity that many are too stupid to see this.

Extract from W.H. Auden's "The Unknown Citizen:"

-Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
-That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
-When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.
-He was married and added five children to the population,
-Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his
generation.
-And our teachers report that he never interfered with their
education.
-Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
-Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.

That sounds very much like many NGOs, and very much like David Suzuki to me (except perhaps the part about war). When maintaining the organization becomes more important than the ideals and principles of the organization, the activities of the organization become counterproductive for many of the rest of us. In the case of organizations which are supposedly devoted to environmental causes, the effect is even more pernicious.

Last time I looked their was plenty of room outside with the Supermarkets filled with food. The countries without seem to be dictatorships with a long history of corrupt Governments. This is more about people getting their knickers in a knot about very little. Seems like the author feels it would be wrong for many more to enjoy the same standard of living that he has. It is similar to the true believers in man made warming who insist on taking a plane to every earth worshiping seminar on the planet blinded by their own hypocrisy and wanting to stop others from enjoying a little of the benefits they have.

Last time I looked, ocean fish stocks were collapsing, water shortages were occurring around the world, our food production and transportation were unsustainably propped up by declining fossil fuels, and "plenty of room outside" was experiencing the Sixth
Great Extinction because of human population pressure. Some people seem to want a human monoculture, with humans shoulder-to-shoulder on this poor planet, before they will be at all concerned. Others wish to use our intelligence to solve the problems before they become even worse. I suppose this same debate occurred just prior to the collapse of many past civilizations, and I hope that the result is not the same.

An excellent article and a lot of wise comments, especially from Leigh, John D, and Rick S.

To the denialists here, I recommend this free, downloadable book from the Earth Policy Institute that discusses the issues raised by Rick S in detail and is choc-a-bloc with references to government documents and research papers. Please now explain how it is all some vast conspiracy or how the sources have all been misrepresented.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/Contents.htm

This is a link to an article in the May Scientific American by Lester Brown, an agronomist and one of the authors of the previous book. It discusses the desperate food situation that poor countries are likely to encounter due to eroding topsoil and pumping dry of the aquifers under major food growing regions of the world.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-shortages&sc=WR_20090428

This is a report of a speech by Britain's Chief Scientist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/perfect-storm-john-beddington-energy-food-climate

"Our food reserves are at a 50-year low, but by 2030 we need to be producing 50% more food. At the same time, we will need 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water."

As per Michael Lardelli's articles on this forum, essentially we humans made a bargain with our crop plants during the Green Revolution. The plants would put more energy into grain and less into roots, stems, leaves, and chemical defences. The humans would take care of supplying water and nutrients, and look after spacing and control of weeds and other pests. What happens when we can't keep our side of the bargain?

Forming a new political party is complex and time-consuming. Then it can take decades to win widespread public acceptance. There are two alternatives:

1) Invade the existing parties to attempt to influence their choice of candidates

2) Form a lobby group that offers to donate LARGE sums to a party that opposes population growth.

The second suggestions my not be as difficult as one imagines - with a good internet campaign.

Another choice, which I am only suggesting due to the seriousness of the issue, might be to vote for the independent or minor party candidate of your choice and put the major parties last, with any other growthist candidates as close to the bottom as you can get them. Put major party incumbents last of all. The idea is to do your best to make government change hands every time and to turf growthist politicians off the Parliamentary gravy train, preferably before they qualify for those handsome superannuation benefits. This strategy will work best in marginal seats, where the candidates will soon find that the business lobby can give them money, but can't force people to vote for them.

Do you guys all work in the same office? This is an extended blog for the Unsustainable Unpeople society.

At the moment you've already given the enemies of the Greens a fantastic wedge issue. By all means start up your own political party. Try Patagonia.

Just because we don't walk around with placards saying the 'end is nigh' doesn't mean we're denialists - although there's great intellectual pleasure in that position. It means were against cranks and cults.

You guys are from the Genetics department of Adelaide Uni aren't you?

I suggest you vote for One Nation or have a crack at voting for the British National Party. They're more up your alley.

Divergence - you cannot support the article by citing other articles or whole books based on the same flawed premises, and wild-eyed alarmist view of the world. The only one I would pay any attention to the list you cite is the Scientific America item and, if you look closely at that, it is talking more about developing countries. There is nothing in any of the food production stats in the Western countries to even begin to suggest that a collapse is imminent - in fact, as long-term price trends show, the reverse is happening. Prices have risen in the short term for a variety of reasons which is a boon for farmers in Australia, but unfortunate for poor people. To balance that there are fewer poor people, both overall and as a proportion of the population than there was a decade or so ago? Why is that so? Look at trends in china and India.
VK3AUU, yes I'm aware of the current troubles with plantation owners. It does not affect the long-term trends.

Since the collapse of the Chinese economy in the Chinese new year, the number of poor people in China has likely risen by a substantial amount.

The price of dairy products has also fallen through the floor in recent months.

One thing that is always missing from these "we're all rooned" mutual admiration societies is the vaguest inkling of a solution.

So far, the only proposal is to form the "Australian People's Party", as if another political faction, complete with power struggles and mealy-mouthed compromise, would solve anything.

The depth of the problem is at least acknowledged. The only policy that can be articulated, it would appear, is "transparency", with all others lumped under the heading "I could go on with this all day long". No doubt about that, I suspect.

Sorry, people. The answer is not going to suddenly magic itself into being via a super-green, warm-and-cuddly political party. The only thing that will be transparent about it will be the economy, which would instantly sink under the weight of no-carbon, no-immigration, no-industry greenness.

Think for a moment about the options.

If population is the problem, what is the answer?

Stop.

Having.

Children.

Now, that's all very fine for hip, urban greenies who don't (thank goodness) plan to procreate anyway. For whatever reason.

But think of the laws that would need to be passed.

Contemplate for a moment the manner in which you intend to enforce those laws.

Consider some of the issues you will have in simultaneously i) managing a declining population and ii) keeping out undesirables (read: anyone who's foreign).

Try to come to grips with the inevitable reduction, over time, in our ability to care for old people, or the sick. (Uh oh. Soylent Green, anyone?).

No-one says you have to like the way things are. And yes, it is not likely to improve.

No-one says that you should surrender your principles or stop believing that we're all going to hell in a handbasket. Because, in the long run, there is no alternative to our doing just that.

But also, please do not confuse self-righteousness with policy.

As an antidote to self-pity, and to contemplate the sort of society that might indulge in a little population control, I strongly recommend you read Rohinton Mistry's "A Fine Balance".

Have a nice day.

Cheryl: you're on the money again with this one. Notice how this deep-green mob ape the aggressively xenophobic pseudo-nationalists of such creatures as One Nation, Australians Against (Further) Immigration, etc.? That is why I alluded to the more likely danger that such fascist tendencies threaten more as a mainstream influence, pushing the Greens into more overtly fascist sentiments at the grass roots. That's why their deputy boss - the ex-Liberal Party harpie-thing - indicates the sort of mainstream fascist sleaze that the Unsustainables, Eugenicists and other neo-Malthusian fascists so crave in Oz's body politic. Brown can say what he likes, but his figurehead status would be tolerated in their cause by its meek example i.e., he ain't about to have any kids soon!

The most sickening aspect of all this is that the higher immigration was mainly in response to the country's demographic degeneracy, whereby the population has aged into such disproportionately Boomer-and-older numbers, harder to sustain itself. Canada's achievement, compared to other G8 countries, should normally and healthily be a matter for celebration, hope and redistributive, anti-racist justice.

But not for the fascists, of course...they're dead against such causes and ideals.

Tragically, projections from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that, at our high rates of immigration, there is very little change in the age structure of our population by 2050. All that the high immigration does is pass the baby boomer bulge problem onto the next generation and, like most avoidance behaviour, it makes the problem then even larger than currently (since population then will be closer to 50 million). We should be ashamed that we are pushing our demographic problem onto our children rather than solving it ourselves.

I think that the reason so few solutions are suggested to the world's population problem is that it is too late to do anything now. The momentum is too great. But we could stop making things worse for ourselves here by greatly reducing immigration to stabilize the Australian population. Ultimately, Nature will do it for us if we do not act ourselves. There is no escaping that. And the problems are coming faster than realised - they are already very evident in places like South Africa, The Solomons, Afghanistan, Haiti etc. Look closely and you can see the pressures of overpopulation at play.

Glad to see some general agreement on this one.
This is not necessarily a green sentiment, but more a call for a transparent political system and an end to the oligarchy that is subverting democracy and preventing rational governance. Of course there is a serious environmental issue here too, but those are the symptoms. As Aime says, the causes are political, so the solution must be too.
May I suggest the "Open Source" approach?
Technology now allows smaller communities to be viable than before. It starts with "Eco cities" where the local council is stacked and the internet mob moves in. The region must be productive and have resources. With an island against the parasites, this micro-economy can grow if the mob is selective enough to omit parasites and actually manufactures wealth that can be traded. (forget isolationism). Only when physical security is at hand can the political games begin at state and national level. There needs to be a test case big enough to distinguish the project from that of dreamers and ferals. The end-point: city states with minimal common law in a federation to ensure defense and free trade. In this cynical world it will take a disaster to kick it off, but the path can be followed one step at a time.
Calling greens fascist is a bit over the top. Greens are generally anti-corporation. Actually greens come in all political denominations which is why they cannot agree on much.
Runner as usual represents the ignorance vote: "I cant see it so you all must be wrong". As you know, I blame the mind games of religion for this. The impact of religion in politics cannot be underestimated either, though blind profits are more to blame. Most religions are tools of very cynical men.
In the end we are animals doing what animals do. Alas, only a fraction of a fraction of humans will survive, whether it be due to overpopulation/war, enviro-surprise, volcano, dino-killer asteroid, etc. Survivalists without a space program are probably doomed.

"I think that the reason so few solutions are suggested to the world's population problem is that it is too late to do anything now."

Now you tell me! First of all, I reject your initial premise. Unlike many in this forum, I still have some human agency. We're not all rooned. It's the Unsustainable People who are rooned if this blog ever hits a newsdesk.

Secondly, if immigration ain't going to make much difference, what's the prob? Let me wise you up. We'd need to have 400,000 people a year coming on board (mainly kids) to bump out the bottom of the demographic pyramid. Our immigration is a small.

Thirdly, how come you're suddenly a nationalist talking about Australia like it's a lifeboat? I can see some National Front tendancies in these posts but nothing I can compare with Patriotism.

There's a nasty genetics angle in these posts. Has anyone else noticed that?

Curmudgeon writes "There is nothing in any of the food production stats in the Western countries to even begin to suggest that a collapse is imminent."

Is it just coincidence that I had a similar discussion on this forum almost a year ago? At that time, I was pointing out that the global economy was on shaky ground and due for a collapse at any time -- not because of the statistics about economic growth, but because of the underlying factors. It was much more than poor economic and regulatory practices in the United States.

In the case of food production, it is also the underlying factors that people seem to conveniently ignore: among other factors, existing and looming water shortages, soil loss and depletion, the continued paving over of arable land even for higher density development, the heavy reliance on soon-about-to-be-scarce-and-expensive fossil fuels for food production and transportation (not to mention fertilizers, manufacture of farm and food production equipment, and other ways that most people don't seem to consider), and further population growth in high consumption countries.

Unless something drastic happens with fossil fuels prices and availability, the decline in food production won't be as rapid as the economic meltdown. But, just like the economic projections from earlier last year, global predictions about food production are pinned on invalid assumptions about underlying factor. Saying that, because have been upward, that will continue into the future reminds me of a physician staring at a growing tumor and predicting that, because it has grown to this point, it will continue to grow indefinitely.

Ah, Cheryl, you’re so typical of the overpopulation deniers.

Quickly bereft of logical and reasonable arguments, you fall into ad hominem attacks, with racism and xenophobia being the typical endpoint.

But accusations of racism don’t change the underlying facts, and here is why: http://sustainablesalmonarm.ning.com/profiles/blogs/accusations-of-racism-dont

Now, given the two post limit here, as my very wonderful Mexican neighbours say, “mañana.”

[But Cheryl: once they start looking for the "useless eaters" then it'll be less “genetic” and more “eugenicist” and plain “racist” i.e., M_I_A's “the problems are coming faster than realised - they are already very evident in places like South Africa, The Solomons, Afghanistan, Haiti etc.” Neo-Malthusians cannot even accept the idea of population adjustments in our current *emergency* conditions, where migration helps to balance out demographic age disparities, distributional injustice and backward delusions of “race homogeneity” all at once.]

Priceless stuff nonetheless! Again my good anti-fascist allies detect the argumentative absurdities in the genocidalists' case (Cheryl's focus on an uber-pessimist-loser's wallowing in discursive futility with “it is too late”).

Or to distill the essence of M_I_A's and Ozandy's posts: “it is too late...we are animals doing what animals do”.

Touché! Now there's a refreshingly honest neo-Malthusian, fascist statement of ADMISSION. Therefore, just corral yourselves off into some wildlife or safari park (preferably “maximum security”) and leave this politics and economics stuff to us HUMANS. “Too late” is a sentiment for no-hoping losers, and nothing is ever too late for real, properly matured, living and breathing (a.k.a. “carbon-emitting”), and life-affirming human beings motivated towards progress for civilization.

And should the degenerates ever seem to have succeeded in the short term, then we merely adjust our aims to resistance, then restoration of civilization, then back to progressive advancement.

Sooner or later, such a cause will always win out.

Hey, how about a bit of substance to your arguments and a bit less abuse to those with whom you find disagreement.

David

Leigh wrote: "Howard’s attitude to education and the development of Australia as a knowledge nation not reliant on immigration is plain to see in Peter Wilkinson’s “The Howard Legacy”."

A book which should be read by anyone concerned about the future of this country, or more precisely, the future makeup of the cognitive elite which will shape this country's future. (For those who haven't read it, you can read an extract here: http://independentaustralian.com.au/node/10)

Wilkinson explores in great detail how Australia's unhealthy over-reliance on immigration to meet "skills shortages" is having a profound effect on the makeup of our cognitive elite, the professional and management classes.

He writes:

"Under John Howard, Australia has become the first ethnic European nation to openly invite in distinct ethnic groups to provide the skills required in today’s knowledge economy. The need arises because governments have not been prepared to provide the necessary finance and motivation to sufficiently educate our own children. They have allowed ideologues in the education system to persuade parents and children that achieving certain skill levels does not matter. Recent arrivals are not fooled, they exploit existing Australian human and physical capital at the expense of the long standing Australian families in our schools and universities. The intergenerational transfer which has been an integral part of our society has been denied to many long established families without them realising it."

In other words, the birthright of long-standing Australians is being handed to foreigners on a platter. Rather than invest in our own people, the Federal Government is selling them out and outsourcing the running of our "knowledge econony" to a new, foreign-born elite.

It is not difficult to parade the arguments for a lower level of population.

In fact, it is by far the simplest position to adopt.

Look around you, we are told, self-righteously and occasionally pompously, there are finite resources. We are consuming more and more of them every day. Every new arrival adds to the "ecological footprint". Growth is not sustainable, mathematically and logically. And so on and so on.

It's is an easy stance to adopt, and a simple one to defend.

Where it gets difficult, is proposing a solution. So far, I haven't seen anything remotely practical being put forward. Or, come to that, remotely humanitarian.

"Stop immigration". Ok. What happens to the people we turn away. Are we happy to condemn them to an early grave, so long as they go and die where we can't see them? I guess that's all right then.

"Limit population growth". Ok. Who stops, and who is allowed, and who decides?

How about a voucher system. If you have one you can't or don't use, sell it to someone who wants it. Put your baby-voucher up on eBay. Kids as commodities. Nice. And what would be the punishment for unauthorised pregnancy? I know, we could deport them, so that they can seek asylum in a less enlightened political system.

So here's a little challenge for those who simply call us "overpopulation deniers" (thanks Rick S).

Stop shilly-shallying around with slogans, and come up with a plan.

If you believe that our "ideal" population is fifteen million, or ten million, or two million, show us how to get there.

Do the maths, work through the demographic implications - ageing population, urban migration etc. and describe a little of the reality of anti-growth.

It would certainly be more useful and illuminating that sloganry, mil-observer.

>>And should the degenerates ever seem to have succeeded in the short term, then we merely adjust our aims to resistance, then restoration of civilization, then back to progressive advancement.<<

If you can't come up with anything, we'll just have to call you "solution deniers".

I see that the usual growth zealots are still trying to foist their pyramid schemes upon the rest of us.

Here's a little dose of demographic reality: immigration is no solution to an aging population because, surprise surprise, immigrants grow old too. In fact, by importing so many immigrants, we are simply augmenting the dependent elderly population of the future, which will make it necessary to bring in even more immigrants further down the track to support them.

As one parliamentary research paper concluded:

"... immigration cannot 'solve our ageing problem'. Substantial ageing of the Australian population over the coming decades is absolutely inevitable. To illustrate the lack of power that immigration has in relation to our age structure, we investigate the levels of immigration that would be required to maintain the proportion of the population aged 65 and over at its present level of 12.2 per cent. In doing this, we maintain the fertility and mortality assumptions of the standard but allow annual net migration to change.

To achieve our aim, enormous numbers of immigrants would be required, starting in 1998 at 200 000 per annum, rising to 4 million per annum by 2048 and to 30 million per annum by 2098. By the end of next century with these levels of immigration, our population would have reached almost one billion. ... it is important that the message is heard that our population cannot be kept young through immigration. The problem is that immigrants, like the rest of the population, get older and as they do, to keep the population young, we would need an increasingly higher number of immigrants."

http://wopared.parl.net/library/pubs/RP/1999-2000/2000rp05.htm

I cant believe this forum , how did you lot become so anti Human ?
Are you all living in cardboard boxes hiding behind the Vic Market ?

Apparently you see yourselves as Titled Beneficiaries of the Estate of Moses !

You are Defeatists you have no Vision or Imagination . You are Philosophically Dead .

You are Morally and Ethically Broken !

Every time you pass a Primary School you Lust for Revenge , "The Final Solution".

As an example Japan and the UK tiny Countries , where do they fit into your scenario , how come they missed out on being Junked as in your Theories .

We all need to Wake Up We need to Reproduce ourselves a few times and we need to get off our Bums and Produce Products to Market OS .

We need to Grow up and stop Voting for funny blokes who stroke us from the Box , what is the Debt now , it's very dynamic , probably 315 Billion , thats everybody over 40's super vanished ?.............Thats our finance pool demoralized our future an up hill journey . The lesson not yet complete The Ersatz Man has passage yet .

Cont'd

Cont'd

Finally we need to do something about Water !

We 'Have to' generate water on a Grand Scale .

The answer will be found by examining nature and duplicating and Containing that process .

This is our Future : Desalination of Sea Water by the combination of Contained Solar Sea Water Evaporation and Contained Chilled Water Condensation producing totally salt free water .

The Evaporators can be built by Journey Men assisted by Green House Tomato Growers . Inside the Greenhouse are racks for Shade cloth drapes over which sea water is pumped Solar energy evaporates the water the product is a Cloud of fresh water or a parcel of air at 100% Humidity .

One end of the Greenhouse is open the air is drawn into the greenhouse by Huge Centrifugal Fans contained in the exit end of the Chilled Water Condenser House
Condensers contain Chilled Water ; the cloud from the Evaporation Plant is drawn through the Cold Condenser the product is Rain .NB Other tricks happen here , Saturated adiabatic Lapse Rate and Dust Introduction etc.

Right on ShazzBazz,

You're the voice of reason amongst some pretty whacky posts here.

I'm with Pericles here. The prob with the Unsustainable Unpeoples is that to realise their ZPG, V for Vendetta, Charlton Heston 'Omega Men dream, of Australia as a urban desert, there's going to have to be a lot of old fashioned reduction of freedom and liberty.

The anti pops or 'ants' as I've taken to calling them think people are, well, ants. We're all just eating machines to them. Their propaganda has all the substance of a Youtube presentation.

I don't doubt that they believe we're all going to hell in a handbasket and that after the apocalypse, they will rise up and create a kinder and wiser world.

But until that happens, they will have to put up with people such as Mil Ob, Pericles, Shazzbazz and myself who champion liberty and freedom and not the slavish pursuit of instrumentalism and mass sterlisation programs.

Thanks Aime for having a shot at the questions I posed in my first post and to others who responded accordingly.

Unfortunately I can’t see that starting a new political party would be the solution to restoring the baseline responsibility of government, which is to act for the greater good and rather than being strongly biased in favour of the highly vested-interest big business big donations sector.

The same sort of thing would happen with a new party as happened with One Nation for as long as the current relationship between this sector and both major political parties remains entrenched.

Unfortunately, expecting any government to significantly change the donations regime is too big an ask. So I think that we have to play the game within the existing financial arrangements.

Therefore the sustainability lobby has got to either compete directly with the big biz donations by offering similarly large donations, or we need to impress the urgency of reducing immigration to about net zero and of striving directly for a sustainable society upon big business moguls to the point where they can actually see the light and ‘buy’ the right sort of change in direction from government.

At any rate, it is well and truly time to stop wasting our energy debating the significance of the continuous population growth issue with milly, Shazzy, Cheryl and runner and start concentrating on what we can do about it.

Pericles, you’ve asked interesting questions. How about you have a go at answering mine and I’ll endeavour to answer yours.

Mil Ob, Pericles, Shazzbazz and Cheryl who claim to champion liberty and freedom seem to be the only ones who have mentioned the slavish pursuit of instrumentalism and mass sterlisation programs.

If you wish to maintain the pursuit of freedom, you will need to come up with some better alternatives, although it must be coming very difficult to breathe while your heads are buried in the sands of time.

Ludwig, that is a perfectly reasonable request.

>>Pericles, you’ve asked interesting questions. How about you have a go at answering mine and I’ll endeavour to answer yours.<<.

I presume these are the questions... errr... in question, as it were.

>>How on earth do we escape the trap engendered by the donations regime from the building industry and their associated big business buddies in various fields, to governments?

How do we make governments independent of the enormously powerful big business lobby?

How do we restore the baseline responsibility of governments?<<

The answer to all these is of course to conduct government with transparency and with honesty.

But I have to question whether these are - if not "the most important questions of our time", as you describe them, rather dramatically if I may say so - at all relevant to the issue of population.

You do have to make the assumption that the only reason for our increasing population is the baleful influence of "big business", whose objective is to warp population policy to their own nefarious ends.

And nothing at all to do with mummies and daddies wanting little babies.

But let's just suppose for a moment that you are right. And that all we have to do is make the government processes transparent, and punish politicians who are dishonest, in that they do not properly represent their constituents' wishes. Which will, in short order, remove this undue influence from evil lobby groups.

Now we are free to implement our own, anti-growth policies.

What would they be?

What would be their planned impact, as in what is the intended effect on the economy?

How would they be enforced, by whom, and what would be the penalties for non-compliance?

And for extra marks, how would this impact our international relations? With China. With Indonesia. And with the United States.

OK, you solution-deniers, time to get to work.

Shaz says "This is our Future : Desalination of Sea Water by the combination of Contained Solar Sea Water Evaporation and Contained Chilled Water Condensation producing totally salt free water ."

Shaz, we haven't got time. In all probability, peak oil has been passed, which means oil and other fossil fuels will become increasingly more expensive. Oil is vital for all industry. Without it, we cannot continue to produce "stuff" which includes your desal plants.

Also, you'd need to pump that water everywhere and that takes massive amounts of energy, energy that will no longer be there post peak oil.

We're currently in population overshoot. The only thing that's got us there is the cheap and abundant energy found in fossil fuels, especially oil. Once oil becomes prohibitively expensive, it's game over. The agricultural industries will collapse almost overnight. People will starve. Think Easter Island and if you're not familiar with the reasons behind the Easter Island collapse, then please read up on it. We're weaving the same constraints around ourselves!

Some of the answers will be in curtailing population expansion and to "go local." By that I mean transition towns and local food production. Learn how to grow your own food. The supermarket shelves won't be filled with "stuff" forever.

Shaz and Cheryl, you may prefer to believe that technology will save us as it always has and I'll agree that mankind has a long history of "just in time," but this time mankind is facing a disaster of unimaginable consequence and grabbing at rainbows isn't going to make it go away.

V-KKK wants some “substance”! Well, a slimy V-KKK quote does the trick neatly here; watch V-KKK eat up its own toxic, racist vomit: “...don't trust them [Chinese] or we will all be working for Chinese masters before the end of the next decade.” See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8915&page=0#141635

Yep, dem Chahneez varments is reel nastee critters all gon cum n trick us n try take us over like a plague, or dem creepy monsters in science fikshun!

I never abused V-KKK, because s/he did the job already as just another self-abusing genocide groupie. The “race” baggage is just more visible in this case.

Efranke
You grossly misrepresent the argument of Kippen and McDonald. They found that the effect of migration on the aging population is asymmetrical. While increasing migration will not ameliorate the aging population, decreasing migration will retard the aging process. Hence, they argued for continuation of migration at about current levels:

“Given current trends in fertility and mortality, annual net migration to Australia of at least 80 000 persons is necessary to avoid spiralling population decline and substantial falls in the size of the labour force. This level of annual net migration also makes a worthwhile and efficient contribution to the retardation of population ageing. Levels of annual net migration above 80 000 become increasingly ineffective and inefficient in the retardation of ageing.”

Apologies that should have read

“… decreasing migration will ACCELERATE the aging process …”

You are right that Kippen and McDonald introduce a note of much-needed realism into the demographic debate, by showing how hard it is to engineer significant changes in the direction of population levels away from underlying demographic trends. Hence both massive increases in population (say, to 50 million by the middle of the century) and significant decreases (say, to the 8-12 million advocated by Tim Flannery) are equally unrealistic.

It’s worth looking at what these demographers say would be needed to cut the population to 12 million (the upper end of Flannery’ s estimate of a “sustainable” population) by the middle of the century:

… to achieve the aim of this projection, we would have to remove 100 000 persons net from Australia every year for the next 50 years. However, to keep the population at 12 million once that target had been reached, we would have to switch to positive immigration from 2048 onwards. …. The age structures of this projection are interesting in that initially the population becomes much older than the standard (36 per cent aged 65 years and over in 2048 compared to 24 per cent for the standard). However, after 2048, the population becomes younger again, ending in 2098 with a very similar age structure to that of the standard. Thus, this projection leads to severely fluctuating age structures.

They conclude:

“Substantial population decline is difficult to achieve in anything but the very long term because of the momentum for population increase inherent in Australia's present age structure.”

So, I echo Pericles’ challenge

How do those of you who advocate a reduction in population to Flannery’s estimate of about 10 million plan to remove 100,000+ people net a year from Australia for the next 50 years?

and how do you propose to cope with the massive increase in the dependency ratio (the proportion of the population not of working age) that this will generate?

Given the 350 word limit here, and the length of my response to the requests about how to reduce population, I have posted it on my blog and here is the link:

http://sustainablesalmonarm.ning.com/profiles/blogs/how-to-reduce-population

Rick

Seriously, Rick S, is that all?

>>how to reduce population, I have posted it on my blog<<

Allow me to summarise (and you could easily have fitted this within 350 words.)

1.“Let Mother Nature take her course”
2.Halt immigration.
3.Halt overseas aid, except where it is linked to contraception
4.Remove financial support for having children

That's it.

There are a few obvious holes here. But the most glaring must be the admission that in fact, you have no plan.

To quote from your blog, “If anyone reading this has other ideas, I welcome them.”

Which was, kind of, my point.

There are an awful lot of holier-than-thou self-righteous people out there preaching to us about the need for population control, none of whom has even the sketchiest notion of how this might be brought about. You have just qualified yourself into the second category, at least.

If you ran a business, you would understand the need to quantify the results of any action before you pitch a plan. You will need to use estimates, since – being something new – you won't have history to rely upon. But at least you have to try.

Your blog entry fails to address any of the key issues. I'll re-state them here, and renew the request to the solution-deniers for some input.

What would you anticipate the impact of any population reduction policies to be on our economy?

How would any population reduction policies be enforced, by whom, and what would be the penalties for non-compliance?

And for extra marks, how would this impact our international relations? With China. With Indonesia. And with the United States.

And I make absolutely no apology for responding to any airy-fairy “oh dear, there's too many people” Chicken Littles with the same request.

Is there an answer, or is there not?

If there is, what is it?

If there is not, how should we change our conduct as individuals, since we have admitted that we are unable to change the big picture?

Pericles’ strawman arguments are easy but tedious to dismantle. For instance, he ominously warns us that any attempt to curb population growth would result in Australia becoming a scary, China-like dystopian state, replete with punishments for unauthorised pregnancies. Evidently nobody pointed out to Pericles that it is immigration, not natural reproduction, which is driving Australia’s population growth. If it weren’t for the ridiculously high levels of immigration that the major parties have imposed upon the country, Australia’s population would be in the process of stabilising, much like the population of Europe. So natural increase isn’t the problem – immigration is. That means that if we want to stabilise our population, we need to permanently reduce immigration levels.

Fortunately, cutting immigration is a relatively easy thing to. If natural increase was the prime driver of Australia’s population growth, then yes, the solution wouldn’t be so simple. However, we aren’t facing that problem. All that we need to do is reduce immigration to much saner levels, thereby bringing Australia in line with the rest of the industrialised world.

Pericles states: “If population is the problem, what is the answer? Stop. Having. Children.” Australians, by and large, already have. Our national birthrate is below replacement levels. But, as I’ve already stated, it isn’t natural reproduction which is driving our rapid rate of population growth. Thus, Pericles is barking up the wrong tree.

[Continued below..]

Of course, Pericles thinks that reducing immigration is somehow immoral. It is Australia’s obligation, he informs us, to accept the world’s poor, miserable masses.

He states: “What happens to the people we turn away. Are we happy to condemn them to an early grave, so long as they go and die where we can't see them? I guess that's all right then.”

By using such emotive language, Pericles positions himself as a great humanitarian, a true champion of the underprivileged, while making the rest of us who want to reduce immigration seem like heartless, selfish brutes.

There are two main problems with this argument. The first is that the vast majority of foreigners settling in Australia are not destitute refugees, but economic migrants. Given that most of these economic immigrants are education and skilled, they are hardly the type of people who would be living in abject poverty back in their old countries. They are merely economic opportunists

The other flaw in Pericles’ argument is that Australia cannot save the world, no matter how many people we import. Even if we opened our doors to unfettered immigration, it would make no difference whatsoever on a global scale. All it would do is destroy our own civilisation and transform our country into a water starved, food scant and quality of life nightmare.

Needless to say, turning Australia into another overpopulated Third World dump is not going to save the world’s poor from an “an early grave.” (Incidentally, does Pericles not realise that the only way to prevent people from being turned away would be to grant everybody on the planet the right to migrate to Australia? Is that what he is advocating?)

Interesting article and discussion. While I'm firmly in the camp of those who think that human overpopulation is the major cause of environmental degradation of Australia and everywhere else, I can also see that the solution/s - if they exist - are rather more complex than simply restricting immigration or reducing the birthrate.

While I obviously don't agree with the more aggressive (and offensive) 'growthists' who've contributed to the discussion, I think that Pericles makes some very good points. How exactly are we going to limit or reduce himan populations in Australia and the rest of the world, without drastically altering our economies by reducing/simplifying the material conditions of our existence?

Personally, I can't see a situation where any democratic government would ever be allowed by its voters to voluntarily impose such constraints, which would have to be quite draconian and would inevitably be decried as reducing their constituents' 'standard of living'.

This is, of couse, why no credible political party in Australia (and probably elsewhere) will touch population policy, beyond talking in platitudes. My feeling is that the population/materialism bubble will eventually burst, but it will be involuntary and calamitous, and will only happen after the environmental destruction of the planet gets much worse.

Meanwhile, of course, it will provide people everywhere with plenty to fight about.

Pericles, perhaps my blog post fails to address YOUR key issues, but they are irrelevant -- straw man arguments, as Efranke has already pointed out. The impact on the economy of a gradual decline in population will be far easier to swallow than that from any Mathusian die-off. You seem to assume that business as usual can continue, and you are dead wrong (in more ways than just this). You may not like my plan, but at least I offered. So, where is your response to my question about a plan for continuing to feed the current population, let alone any increase? Where is your plan?

And I have already acknowledged that the "big picture" is not about to change significantly, not until we are on or over the brink of disaster. Likely, you and others of your ilk will be the first ones to cry "Why didn't someone do something? Why weren't we told?" Well, you have been told.

As for individual behaviours, I chose at a time when large families were the norm in my region to have only two children -- less than the replacement rate. Little did I know that the government would subsequently open the immigration floodgates and undo any good I had done. Thus, I fight in any other way I can, including political activism. So what are you doing?

Pericles: a pity that you took the neo-Malthusians' express wish for depopulation at face value as something worth practical consideration. That only encourages them; they interpret your engagement as a sign of self-doubt, even weakness.

When push comes to shove - which is about right now - the neo-Malthusian elitists find varieties of culling mechanisms. One coming into vogue in the UK and US is the further dismantling and merchandising of public health systems and pharmaceuticals. In the US, behaviorist quacks have even carried their Randian dystopia so far as to calculate monetary equations around the old Eugenicist/Nazi question: "When is a human life not worth living?"

On a global, international level, the indications are grim from recent Dutch seizures of Indian merchant vessels carrying generic medicines and their component chemicals. There's no specific law to justify such obvious Big Pharma piracy.

That's why I identified the neo-Malthusians' barely suppressed and hastily concealed euphoria over the Swine Flu pandemic: they're coming out of the woodwork, feeling that it's now "their own special time". See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8838&page=0 (they got well and truly trashed there too)

Curmudgeon,

It is amusing to think that the British government would make a "wild-eyed" fanatic their Chief Scientist (akin to Obama's Chief Scientific Advisor). If you don't see him as having scientific credentials, I wonder what you would accept. Imminent collapse in Australia or other developed countries that are self-sufficient in food is unlikely, but our leaders are certainly whittling away at our safety margins and degrading our environment. See the government's own Measures of Australia's Progress reports (on the Web). The latest one flags a number of important environmental indicators that are getting worse, apart from urban air quality.

Pericles,

As Efranke pointed out, Australia's fertility rate has been below replacement level for decades. Any remaining natural increase will end and slowly go negative as the baby boomers start to die in significant numbers. In the very long run, we might need to encourage people to have more babies. Slow population decline down to a sustainable level is not an economic disaster, however. See

http://www.newstatesman.com/200211040019

Our problems are due to too many growthist politicians promoting too much immigration, not too many babies. The solution lies in mobilising people to get rid of the growthists. Globally, we can't tell foreigners what to do, but nor are we forced to make their problems ours, with the end result being to make Australia as poor, populous, environmentally degraded, and politically unfree as the places people are risking their lives to escape. There are a number of studies showing that liberal immigration policies promote even more population growth back in the home country. See refs. to Chapter 3 of Virginia Abernethy's "Population Politics". This is not to say that we should not do more to help in evidence-based ways. Rick S referred to some of them.

Excellent stuff Rick S (on your blog).

Welcome to OLO.
.
Pericles, you wrote;

“It is not difficult to parade the arguments for a lower level of population. In fact, it is by far the simplest position to adopt…..It's is an easy stance to adopt, and a simple one to defend.”

Glad you think so. So if it is a simple “solution” , how come you are a self-confessed ‘population denier’ ?

“ ‘Stop immigration’. Ok. What happens to the people we turn away. Are we happy to condemn them to an early grave, so long as they go and die where we can't see them?”

We bring in ~13 500 people a year who are possibly at risk of meeting an early grave. That’s a tiny fraction of our total intake. I advocate doubling that, within a net zero immigration program. That would be a reasonable balance between our sustainability imperative and our obligation to be a good global humanitarian citizen, in conjunction with increased international aid directed primarily at population stabilisation.

" ‘Limit population growth’. Ok. Who stops, and who is allowed, and who decides?”

Simple. Those who are allowed into the country would be determined on the same basis as they are now, just in different numbers, with more refugees and vastly less skilled people and their families.

As far as births are concerned, no one needs to be forced into not having kids. We just need to reverse the incentives regime, from the absurdity of the baby bonus and tax incentives that encourage a higher fertility rate, to financial incentives that encourage a lower birth rate.

Who decides? The Australian community. Government, scientists, ordinary people, etc.

It is EASY in Australia. It’s a whole lot harder in many other countries, but if Australia is to have a meaningful input into the global population growth issue, it has to get itself onto the right track first. That doesn’t mean that we have to achieve a sustainable population first, but we do have to implement the right policies that will take us there first.

More later.

I just love the way people insist on convenient pigeonholes, Ludwig.

>>...how come you are a self-confessed ‘population denier’?<<

I'm not.

Unless, of course, you slap this label on everyone who doesn't believe that a reduction in population is necessarily a great idea.

As for Efranke's little outburst:

>>Pericles thinks that reducing immigration is somehow immoral<<

Is it any wonder that I can't take your arguments seriously, if this is the extent of your logic?

I accept that populations rise over time. I accept that we are extremely profligate in our use of non-renewable resources.

But I refuse to be panicked into half-assed schemes, or railroaded into warm-and-fuzzy pet projects, without allowing myself the luxury of asking what I see as some reasonable, unemotional, straightforward questions.

It is significant that neither you nor Rick S is prepared to grasp the nettle, and tell us what will be the economic impact of your "policies".

>>where is your response to my question about a plan for continuing to feed the current population, let alone any increase?<<

I don't recall your asking such a question.

How about you supply some evidence that we are in danger of being unable to feed ourselves, and then ask your question.

But in the meantime, I am reassured that none of you is seriously suggesting that we reduce our population, as some people have done. I do recall figures like "Australia can only support ten million" and "the world can only support a billion"... now where did I read that last one?

Ah yes. The author of the piece on which we are commenting, Tim Murray, has a link from his blog profile

http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com/

"Earth's human population is over 10 times what is optimal"

"Governments worldwide should offer males and females generous compensation for getting sterilized"

"If fines were issued and privileges were revoked for reproducing, reproduction would decline."

"Broadcasters funded by taxation (eg: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, British Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) should be shut down if they continue to exclude and censor the overpopulation reality"

You see where this is heading, don't you.

a mention on the abc..5;13..on a[5 oclock kids show]..had these kids on it..i only half heard it because i was cooking dinner...[but these children said eugenics..then gave their re-definition of it...turns out eugenics is the science of gmo mofification..[now]..at least for all the kids watching tv...but it was soon explained better..lol

i glanced up at the word..in time to see this asian kid defining his genetical modification..via eugenics..that made his body 'space-proof'..[later i heard the word again spoken by some young femail..[the villan i think]..they had some kid clamped on an autopsy table going to conduct some eugenics thing on him

this is from the [YOUR]..abc...its just so sad to see what ccc-rap they are filling our kids minds with...its not likely a thing you want to have to re-explain to kids..to correct the lie your abc implanted..two times in 3 minutes into their minds...but there you go...the damage is done..

wonder how many now..will hope they get eugenics..done to them..so they too can fly a flying-saucer..the china looking kid was some space flying saucer..pilot...lol

hopefully you eugenisist supporters out there have your kids watching the abc...thanks heaps aunty..its sad to see how low the abc has sunk

hopefully those believing the theory start doing it ammoung themselves..first..[but i suspect they much prefer..if kids start doing it to each-other]..so only their 'own'..pure/perfect genes survive

OUG: scary about the "Eugenics" sleaze on Aunty, but hardly surprising.

Eugenics is the dirty secret of an elitist cult. Such imperialist, racist entities as Churchill and Keynes were prominent advocates, while the Nazis and other fascists took it up keenly as an ideological weapon in their own anti-population and anti-human drives. Eugenics is the logical progression (for want of a better term) from Malthusian views hostile to population growth in general, and to such growth and progress among poor people in particular.

Once the Eugenicists identify the supposed "useless eaters" among the populace, it's no major challenge for Eugenicist policy-makers to start the process. Of course, more overtly "fascist" regimes such as Nazi Germany started its own Eugenicist project via "euthanasia" of the chronically ill, the retarded, etc., which very fast ended up in mass murder of "work shy", "vagrant", then on to any other they arbitrarily stigmatized among the populace.

As part of the genocidalists' effort to identify "the life not worth living" or "better off unlived" (as recorded in explicit National Socialist movie propaganda), "euthanasia" is a key component in the genocidalists' armory. As you doubtless know, the ABC gives plenty of free publicity to euthanasia campaigner Nitchke (Oz's answer to Jack Kevorkian), and neo-Malthusians express a general support for such trends too.

Now an interesting point apparent from this "discussion" is the neo-Malthusians' targets in 21st Century Australia. Ludwig believes the problem starts with the kids. But if the project was about productivity and demographic balance, many other genocidalists will use their simplistic, nasty flowchart to target the elderly, sick, handicapped, etc.

With such trends as barbarically privatized health systems and normalized Kevorkianism, we can probably expect genocidalists to push both angles. Thus, families with kids (except for the rich) and the majority of the aged, should all regard themselves as targets in the neo-Malthusian genocidalists' sights.

Btw, in Australia's current demographic context, reducing immigration IS immoral. It's also suicidal - which is fine for eugenicists of course, because they (mostly) have their titles and nest eggs sorted out in advance.

"The Sustainability Imperative"! Yeah, fascism.

“I just love the way people insist on convenient pigeonholes, Ludwig.”

Sheesh Pericles. I’m not pigeonholing or labelling you. I was just responding to what appeared to me to be an admission on your part as being an (over)population denier.

I derived that impression partly from this;

“So here's a little challenge for those who simply call us `overpopulation deniers’ “.

You seemed to be grouping yourself with others on this thread that are clearly deniers of any overpopulation problem.

Excuuuse me if I got the wrong idea.

Alright… it is actually quite good that you reacted so strongly to be called a population denier. It is now apparent to me that you certainly aren’t one. That’s very good. Pleased to have straightened that out (:>)

Now where was I? Oh yes…… I was addressing your questions from a few posts back.

Oh uh, I just noticed this:

“OK, you solution-deniers, time to get to work.”

Hmmm…solution-deniers. I just love the way some people insist on convenient pigeonholes! ( :>/

Amie : In response to ShazBaz Water Desalination ;" We haven't got Time" .

I am not sure what you have in mind to achieve your rapid Population decline ; is it local or World wide .

To high lite your Problem : Africa................? You might take a look at what the Islamic people in Western Countries are doing ; Populate or Perish , might be their attitude .

You don't have the leverage in democracies to "ENFORCE" peoples family programs ; sure you can remove cash incentives and I would hope you wouldn't countenance removing health and family assistance .

I have 5 kids and I am very security conscious , my question to you is : will you allow my family to be regulated so not to offend Islamic Law .
I thought a lot had been achieved since Cronulla , that is until I met some Melbourne Taxi drivers . Ugly experience not to be repeated .

How can we operate foul industries like Yallourn and expect no downside same thing with Motor Vehicles Bendigo to Melb return pre fuel injection four gallons of catalytically affected not burnt in the engine fuel exited probably hundreds of individual toxic chemicals probably still breaking down in the earth and atmosphere , did this affect AGW I can't prove it did but I bet it did something unsavory to someone or something and to a lesser extent it's still happening !

Cont'd

Cont'd
How can we operate foul industries like Yallourn and expect no downside same thing with Motor Vehicles Bendigo to Melb return pre fuel injection four gallons of catalytically affected not burnt in the engine fuel exited probably hundreds of individual toxic chemicals probably still breaking down in the earth and atmosphere , did this affect AGW I can't prove it did but I bet it did something unsavory to someone or something and to a lesser extent it's still happening !

My water proposal the Seawater Desalinator is very Low Tech , Journeymen could construct 75% of the project , initially it would be powered by a Diesel Generator , eventually by Steam Turbine Electricity from the Cooper Basin , Best Location for the project would be in WA possibly between Eucla and Red Rocks Point with an aqueduct striking about NNW about 930 K's long by 200 K's wide .......186000 square Klm . This would miss all or most Indigenous area's I think . Note: 'If this matters decarbonising the Atmosphere helps Aboriginals too.'
How much carbon would a Forrest of that dimension require ?
Enough to make a difference ?
Could Palm oil Plantations make a difference to Carbon Capture ?
What would the best tree to grow , high carbon low maintenance ?
Bear in mind a tree growing collects carbon a mature tree not growing anymore collects very little carbon , so the tree selected will need to be usefull for lumber or paper etc.
Honey production Lease would need to be secured for the Project and this could be a consideration when selecting tree variety .

All the above is designed to "Salt" your imagination , if you consider it could be viable then you are thinking positively and should you promote the idea you could appear on an Honor Board one day recognizing your contribution to saving our Planet .

The persons that say were too late , are the one's that didn't get out of bed .

Let’s see…the rational and considered cautions from the Ehrlichs and Lovelocks of the world that we need to work now to reduce the suffering of future generations, or the rabid and one-sided attacks of the likes of mil-observer and others, and even attacks on those who propose very humane measures…

It’s pretty clear to me who really cares about humans, this planet, and their future.

And Pericles, nice attempt to dodge the questions, but you did read what was on my blog, and clearly have no plan if any of the predictions regarding peak anything have any validity. I asked first, so you do the research if you really want to know, as it’s clear already that nothing I say will have any effect on your unshakable world view.

I’m getting the sense here of the same standoff seen in creationism/evolution debates – just another faith-to-faith confrontation, with no resolution in sight (although, in this case, the resolution may already be out of our hands, according to Lovelock and others). On the one hand, we have those who wish to prop up an unsustainable economy and population level that are destroying the biodiversity of this planet, and who don’t seem to care that we are leaving behind a crowded, polluted, and resource-depleted planet for our children. These are likely the same sorts who led to the crashes of past civilizations. On the other hand, we have those who have faith that humans actually do have the intelligence to solve the problems we are creating, and are raising the alarm in an attempt to mitigate what they see as the coming disaster and crash. At least, from what I’ve seen here, I’m on the right side in terms of those who actually seem to care about other people, this planet, and their future.

There is my own unshakable world view, for your entertainment, and I am very much looking forward to the next iteration of GPSO (http://gpso.wordpress.com/ ).

Oh, and thanks, Ludwig.

“Malthus wasn’t wrong, just a bit ahead of his time.”

Rick

This article was like a cold shower on a frosty morning. It explains the silence from groups I would've expected to be far more vocal than they have been - they 'wuz' bought. Even David Suzuki had a price.

I can only concur with CJ Morgan's sentiments:

"My feeling is that the population/materialism bubble will eventually burst, but it will be involuntary and calamitous, and will only happen after the environmental destruction of the planet gets much worse.

Meanwhile, of course, it will provide people everywhere with plenty to fight about."

What I find so infuriating is that we could achieve a biologically diverse and self-sustaining environment starting now, but we're not going to are we? We're just going to continue as we are till there is nothing left to argue over.

Rick S

I find your parallel between the creation/evolution debate most apt.

Maybe I should just go back to my old bad habits as well.

What is most obvious from the anti-populationists is that they didn't expect such an immediate and hostile reaction about their half baked ideas. Blame Kanck and the Unsustainable UnAustralian Unpeople lobby.

They have failed to provide a methodology to explain how they would reduce population. They have produced some end of millenium style cult responses to why poopulation should be cut. eg, the a sunset for me is pretty, for them is a blazing ball of hydrogen explosions. They're operating on a level not much above Aztec blood sacrifices.

Their posts have a real Heavens Gate feel about them, which says more about their apocalyptic belief systems and psychological predispositions.

They can't work out whether this de-populating should start in Australia or be a global phenomenon.

Many of their posts say the focus shouldn't be on reducing the population in Australia but cutting our immigration program. Hmmm. I went to Baxter in SA and saw many of the 'illegal' immigrants as well as people who saved everything to come here and came by plane. The two things they share is poverty and hope. Measuring their potential in terms of energy consumption is obscene and reeks of Fortress Australia.

They are anti-capitalist. They have put sustainability before the economy which is why much of their strident language sounds like we're heading towards Year One in Kampuchea. Like the Khmer Rouge, they are basically agrarian socialists with beards and goatees.

How they can claim the moral high ground is baffling as they are instrumentalists with people's value measured by how much energy we consume. Talk about a dystopia.

Shaz/Baz said.......

"Amie : In response to ShazBaz Water Desalination ;" We haven't got Time" .

I am not sure what you have in mind to achieve your rapid Population decline ; is it local or World wide ."

Shaz/Baz, I doubt you actually read my post properly. What part of population overshoot, as a result of peak oil, don't you understand?

There have been numerous reports to world wide Governments stating that unless we do something to mitigate the disruption of peak oil at least 20 years before the peak, the chances of 'business as usual' simply will no longer be possible, so if world oil supplies truly peaked last year as many experts in that field believe, then your desal plans will never get off the drawing board.

Shaz/Baz, I've spent over three years studying the phenomenon of peak oil and the future for our children and grandchildren is frightening. It's only because of the cheap and abundant energy contained in oil that's allowed the human population to grow from approx. 1.2 billion in the mid 1800's, when oil was first pumped, to almost 7 billion today.

I very much hope I'm wrong, but once peak oil really begins to bite, I can see major wars fought over dwindling supplies, after all, wasn't the war in Iraq all about the US trying to secure it's oil supply? Since oil and oil alone has caused the population overshoot, what do you think will happen once the general population no longer has access to oil products? Hint! We'll have no need to artificially reduce the population. That will be done for us on a frightening time scale and yes! It will be world wide!

Pericles wrote: "What would you anticipate the impact of any population reduction policies to be on our economy?"

Well, I'm not actually advocating "population reduction" per se. Rather, I'm in favour of population stabilisation at around current levels. I don't see why one has to choose between one extreme or the other, that is, a significantly reduced population, as advocated by Tim Flannery, or a massively expanded population, as demanded by the big business groups which effectively dictate immigration policy in this country. Demanding that one decide between halving the population or doubling the population is a false dichotomy.

Do I believe that stabilising the population would have long-term adverse effects on Australia's economic prosperity? No. Europe and Japan have not only survived, but prospered, with stable populations. Growth zealots here in Australia may claim that economic progress depends on population growth. Research shows, however, that there is no correlation whatsoever between population growth and prosperity. While it may increase the overall size of the economy, population growth does not raise GDP per capita.

Maybe in the past there were economic benefits to be derived from having a bigger population and being able to attain economies of scale, but this no longer applies. With globalisation, the world has become our marketplace. The challenge today is to create export industries, not to stimulate internal demand.

In reality, economic wellbeing depends on increases in productivity, innovation, effective use of labour and capital, and trade, not domestic population size or growth. If population size and continued growth were the key to economic success, countries such as Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland would all be impoverished basket cases.

We do not need an ever-expanding population in this country, as the growth zealots claim. Our long-term prospects for environmental sustainability, social and cultural cohesion, political freedom, and a high quality of life will be much improved if our population were stabilised at around current levels, instead of doubling by mid century and then doubling again by the end of the century, which is what will happen if immigration continues at current rates.

Pericles wrote: "How would any population reduction policies be enforced, by whom, and what would be the penalties for non-compliance?"

Another straw man.

Who would enforce national immigration and border control policies? The same people who do now.

"And for extra marks, how would this impact our international relations? With China. With Indonesia. And with the United States."

Last time I checked, Australia was a sovereign nation with an inalienable right to determine the size and composition of its own population. Australia's policies on immigration and population are its own affair and should not be dictated by the phantom of "international opinion" which the pro-immigrationists like to conjure up.

I'm not sure where this "all eyes on Australia" notion originates from, but the idea that the whole world is closely scrutinising our immigration policies, just waiting to condemn Australia the moment we reduce immigration, is very silly.

Japan has a zero immigration policy. As do most Asian countries. As does most of Europe. It hasn't hurt their international relations.

After reading through the "arguments" put foward by the boosters, most of which are nothing but shrill, seriously unhinged, nonsensical rantings about the evils of opposing population growth (are Cheryl and mil-observer by any chance roommates in the same lunatic asylum?), I'm still left wondering why exactly Australia must continue to double its population every forty years.

How does this staggering rate of deliberate population growth, driven by the largest per capita immigration intake in the world, benefit the existing Australian population? Will continued population growth improve our quality of life? Will it alleviate our environmental problems? Will it reduce our carbon emissions? Will it address our water shortages? Will it solve our current account and foreign debt problems? How will it effect agricultural output as urban sprawl eats up the best remaining farmland? How will it effect the myriad of other problems already facing our citizens, such as urban congestion, overburdened public services and infrastructure, housing shortages, worsening socio-economic inequality, growing ethnic and cultural tensions, declining social capital and so on? When, exactly, is enough people enough?

Cheryl, if we don't concentrate on sustainability, then we won't have any economy to worry about. I'm not too sure how all you population growthists think we are going to feed all these extra people around the globe. We are having trouble feeding them all now and it will only get worse as the world's supplies of fertilizer run out. Here in Oz particularly, our low fertility soils need added nutrients in considerable quantities. You can't just rely on organic farming to produce anything on a broadacre scale. We also need water, which has been squandered in the past, and which will be in even shorter supply for farming even in non-drought years, now that the Federal government has decided to finally do something about environmental flows in the Murray-Darling system.

David
That is why we need to do more than think about maintaining population and we should see what can be done to reduce it as time goes by. If we don't do it here in Oz, then we can't expect the rest of the world to follow suit.

Once again, let me state that we live in a world with finite physical resources and once we use them up, we won't be able to sustain anything like the global population we currently have. The anti-Malthusians will then find they have been backing the wrong horse.

Contrary to what Cheryl states, I always expect an immediate and hostile reaction from the overpopulation deniers. Growthism is so ingrained in our society that the majority of people seem unable to consider the consequences of what we're doing to this planet. As I said earlier, this is likely the same mindset that led to the spectacular collapses of past civilizations.

But the sane and civilized voices must persevere, even if for nothing else other than peace of mind.

Rick

I don't really need to add anything more to the we're overpopulated brigade, they've covered pretty much all there is. But what does disturb me is the amount of greedy, selfish, slime balls only worried about the size of their bank accounts and their need to attain ever more materialistic bullsh!t. To them they only worry about growing profit and to hell with the environment and other peoples quality of life. Politicians they must be? Politics being made up of two words. Poly, meaning many and ticks, being blood sucking insects

I've lived my whole life on this island, seen and experienced just about every inch of it and you know what? Life here was better thirty years ago, it was even better sixty years ago. Thirty years ago the rivers were clean and full of fish, yabby's, crays. The pastures, forests were green, full of wildlife and game. The oceans blue and teaming with life. The Estuaries breathing life with every tide change. The roads were empty and traffic congestion was unheard of, the air was clean. There was no need for revenue raising spy machines on every corner. Fresh water was plentiful most of the time. Now through ever increasing population all this is finished and life has turned to sh!t.

I don't give a rats for Plasma TV's, Personal Computers, Theater and all that useless crap. I'm and outdoors man, I hunt, fish, put up breading boxes, walk the bush, boat down the rivers, lakes, try to keep things in balance, enjoy nature and life for all it's worth. How does more people living on this island benefit me? And I'm not alone!

Cont'

Some people would call 'me' selfish, wanting it all for myself, Luddite they call me. Well suck my (insert profanity here). My way is sustainable and enjoyable by everyone for thousands of years to come. The other is a certain road to destruction! There needs to be a balance and that time is passing I'm afraid! Is that how we want our future generations to experience life? Being stuck inside a box watching what once was on an artificial screen? I know my kids don't!

It's pretty obvious to me who the useless eaters are on this rock!

Raw Mustard, that is the best post on the subject I have read. All I can say is "Yeah and Amen"

David

Cheryl: It's total quackery. When checking the neo-Malthusians'/fascists' expression, it becomes clearer that they have not made any critical reflection on their own beliefs. They make no case at all to counter the clear historically fascist parallels with their own zealous exclusivity, narcissism, animalism, regressive entropic worldview, and primordial xenophobia.

That means cultish fanaticism and irrational cognition, and when such qualities determine or even just influence policy, then the results promise mayhem and bloody murder, eventually. Consider the profile of typical European fascist beliefs in the 1930s:

- Sentimentally opposed to modern industrial society, urbanization and the distance from primitive farming, folklore, etc.
- Obsessive fear of presumed “threats” of deluge by notional others, especially “racial” whether “Oriental”, “Jew”, “Slav”, “African”, etc.
- Entropic worldview of “finite resources” spawning claims of unjust distribution, thereby presuming justified oppression and extermination – for Lebensraum, Ancient Destiny, etc. - outside national borders, especially in Eastern Europe, North Africa.
- Mythical elevation of “the natural world” with escapist preoccupations over forests, excursions, nudism and other outdoor activity, ancient religious paganism and rites, “traditional” foods, etc.

Of course, many of these soft-headed petals often like to regard themselves as “leftist” too, but even that simple tag bears no close examination whatsoever. For the same reason I take issue with your assessment that they're “anti-capitalist”. On matters of ETS, privatization, and artificially inflated prices for utilities and oil, these people overwhelmingly support the kind of ruthless robber barons that represent the most extremely mercenary type of capitalist predators. I think we need to identify a distinction: fascists despise any capitalist industry which makes efficient contribution of real, physical difference to the health, comforts and realized potential for vast numbers of people. They like high-tech, but their notion of industry is an exclusive preserve of limited production and correspondingly very limited access (think early VW and TV production in Nazi Germany).

Many historians have identified the fundamental hypocrisies and other inconsistencies in past fascism, but such study hasn't prevented these people's repetitions thereof.

That's the kind of fascist nutbags we're up against.

Plenty of money to gamble, to have boob jobs, to pee against a wall, to smoke, to buy tons of drugs (illegal and legal), two and three car families, to fund numerous failed projects, to win elections. Overpopulation is a myth held by deceived and/or selfish people who really don't have a clue. Keep populating folk ans don't allow the social engineers to make you feel guilty about it. The only global warming is the hot air they spit out.

mil-observer, your recent post had several serious errors, and I know that you don’t have time to think at length about these things, so I have taken the liberty of correcting them:

Cheryl: It's total quackery. When checking the growthist/humanofascists' expression, it becomes clearer that they have not made any critical reflection on their own beliefs. They make no case to counter the clear historically fascist parallels with their own zealous exclusivity, narcissism, speciescentricism, regressive utilitarian worldview, and primordial naturophobia.

That means cultish fanaticism and irrational cognition, and when such qualities determine policy, then the results promise mayhem and murder. Consider the profile of typical beliefs of past collapsed civilizations:

- The belief that human activity is above natural laws,that infinite growth can continue forever on a finite planet
- Obsessive fear of presumed “threats” to their own greedy world view and collections of toys
- Vicious and vitriolic attacks on anyone who questions the status quo
- Mythical elevation of “the human world” with no recognition that our economy and lives are subsets of the finite natural world.

Of course, many of these soft-headed petals like to regard themselves as “rightist” too, but even that simple tag bears no close examination whatsoever. On matters of ETS, privatization, artificially inflated prices for utilities and oil, corporatism, and social engineering, these people overwhelmingly support and exalt the kind of ruthless robber barons that represent the most extremely mercenary type of capitalist predators. I think we need to identify a distinction: humanofascists despise the notion that the natural world makes any physical difference to the health, comforts and realized potential for vast numbers of people. They like high-tech to the point of technomania, and their notion of industry is of some unassailable god to whom we must regularly genuflect.

Many historians have identified the fundamental hypocrisies and other inconsistencies in past humanofascism, but such study hasn't prevented these people's repetitions thereof.

That's the kind of humanofascist nutbags we're up against.

And most of them live in large cities and have succumbed to the “city psychosis,” showing once again that misery loves company.

And now the entity spews out a completely anti-historical take on the ideological concept of "fascism". Check the detail of historical precedent and it's clear these people have ticked all the boxes of irrationalism, primordialism and the extremes of high self-regard versus callous indifference to others (especially children). In related OLO threads, neo-Malthusian and aristo-aspirant daggett has already revealed the classic Nazi-style "Blood and Soil" mysticism so crucial to such people's belief system.

In the same way, the genocidalists' inventive absurdities of "growthism" and "humanofascism" reveal the vacuous, apolitical wasteland that is by contrast a fertile ground for such toxic weeds.

Since the birth of our first child, I've had repeated cases of nasty contempt spat at us merely for having children. Their selfish and self-righteous retort in conversation is that they will never have children because "the planet is already so over-populated".

It's profoundly dangerous to this country, because it will leave it so much more brittle and unstable.

Quite right Mil ob. Rick S, you've interprited the world purely through the distorted fish eye of environmental extremism and landed in the 'blood and soil' world of the mythical aryians. So that all progress is regressive, all medicine is bad, all capital accumulation destroys the environment, etc.

God only knows what mean mr Mustard man is on. His argument is more of a round the camp fire, cork hat, ancient analogue of something harking back to a return to nature or the poetry of Banjo Paterson. If you hate progress, no need for a flu shot for you this year. Also, if you want to drive to Alice Springs, you can walk. Want to go to London? Here's an axe and there's a tree. Good one canoe man.

Many years ago Democrat Senator John Coulter ranted about air fuel punching a hole in the ozone layer - just before he boarded a Qantas jet from Canberra to Adelaide.

Some astounding hypocrisy here from the anti-pops. Cargo cult thinking who believe that cars emerge from iron ore fully formed.

It's pretty clear that the self-righteous holier-than-thous have won this particular skirmish, mainly through describing everything they don't like to answer as a straw-man argument, so I'll bow out.

But before I go, one more question to Rick "collapse of civilization" S.

What's this all about?

>>Consider the profile of typical beliefs of past collapsed civilizations:
- The belief that human activity is above natural laws,that infinite growth can continue forever on a finite planet
- Obsessive fear of presumed “threats” to their own greedy world view and collections of toys
- Vicious and vitriolic attacks on anyone who questions the status quo
- Mythical elevation of “the human world” with no recognition that our economy and lives are subsets of the finite natural world.<<

You seem to be saying "it's happened before".

It all sounds very instructive - we should after all always take note of precedents where they are available.

Can you give any examples? Prefererably from this planet.

I have a side-bet with my partner - who incidentally fights the same corner as you, and thinks I'm nuts - that you cannot support this claim, and it's just more showmanship.

There's more than money riding on this.

“It's pretty clear that the self-righteous holier-than-thous have won this particular skirmish…”

Hold on Pericles, if you think they’ve won, then surely you think they have the better argument. That’s all that matters isn’t it?

“You seem to be saying ‘it's happened before’…..we should after all always take note of precedents where they are available.”

I don’t understand. Someone such as yourself would know that the collapse of civilisations has happened numerous times. And you must have pretty good idea of why.

Two of the major causal factors have been overpopulation and a decline in the output of the life-supporting resource base. Either way, the supply/demand ratio has proven to be the critical factor in many cases, if not the vast majority.

http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/mayans.html
http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/mesopotamia.html
http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/chacocanyon.html

The factors are different in each of these examples. But the size of the population compared to the ability of the hinterland to provide food to comfortably support it has been the critical imbalance in each case. It is a pretty fair bet that the belief system elucidated by Rick S was entrenched in each case.

You've said that you are bowing out of this discussion. I thought you and I were doing quite well. We seemed to be on the same track – we both wanted to discuss how to achieve a stable population and sustainable society. Let’s stick at it. It is vitally important stuff.

Pericles, in a nutshell, "A Short History of Progress" by Ronald Wright. Enjoy.

And, sadly, if the growthists have "won" anything, then the planet has lost. It's a very good thing that that is not the case in this "discussion."

mil-observer's and Cheryl's comments are merely inaccurate and rabid vitriol, and certainly not instructive or supportive to the discussion in any way whatsoever (but certainly all too typical of those who wish to destroy this planet).

I don't understand how people like these two see the whole game play out? Do we just lay down another trillion tons of concrete and tar and call it further progress? Where do they see the end of this madness? when we're all up to the eyeballs in filth with nowhere more to expand. Or do they actually believe we'll discover the secrets of subspace travel and colonise, rape another planet out there somewhere?

At what point is enough, enough?
These people boggle the mind to say the least!

Pericles wrote: "It's pretty clear that the self-righteous holier-than-thous have won this particular skirmish, mainly through describing everything they don't like to answer as a straw-man argument, so I'll bow out."

That's pretty pathetic, especially since I took the time to give a lengthy response to your questions.

Here is my suggestion to you: If you don't like people exposing your straw man arguments, then don't make them!

You made the assertion that the only way to halt further population growth in this country would be to stop natural reproduction by imposing draconian laws on people. I pointed out that Australia's birthrate is below replacement levels, and if it weren't for high immigration levels, our population would already be in the process of stabilising. Thus, all this talk about "baby-vouchers on eBay" and "punishment for unauthorised pregnancies" amounted to a straw man argument, given that natural births aren't the source of population growth and therefore not the problem.

You also invoked the spectre of all those poor huddled masses who would be left to die an early death is we dared reduce immigration. Never mind that our refugee intake is only a small fraction of the overall immigration intake and the overwhelming majority of those coming here are skilled, educated immigrants who probably aren't at risk of dying an early death back in their old countries. Of course, by poaching doctors and other professionals from the Third World, we are more than likely adding to the preventable death toll in those countries. But that's okay, because big business in Australia needs them more (training Australians is just too expensive and time consuming).

And, of course, there was that furphy about "who will enforce these population controls?". I mean, did you not get the part about our population growth being driven by immigration? Who will enforce migration controls? Generally, national governments enforce such things. It's what nation-states do.

Oh, but that's right, I'm just describing everything that I don't like to answer as a straw-man argument!

Rick S said: "mil-observer's and Cheryl's comments are merely inaccurate and rabid vitriol, and certainly not instructive or supportive to the discussion in any way whatsoever (but certainly all too typical of those who wish to destroy this planet)."

No, I think even Pericles realised that his "allies" in this debate were utterly irrational, unhinged fruitcakes who contributed nothing other than absurd ad hominem attacks against all those who dared question massive population growth in this country and the plutocracy which is behind it.

Warnings about neo-Malthusians' fascism is “ad hom, rabid, vitriolic”? Let's investigate...

Clearly these genocidalists cannot refute the obvious similarities between historically recorded fascist sentiments and their parallels in revivalist Malthusian swamps of degenerate, pessimistic regard for humanity, with their compatibly neo-fascist regression into pagan “Gaia” mysticism.

To recapitulate these common fascist characteristics:

- Hostility to migrations by “others”, and to humanity's tendency towards demographic mixture and balancing out between the poor but population-dense and the rich but decrepit
- Mythical glorification of active “outdoors” nature-bonding, as propagated in European fascist youth organizations, and general elevation of “the natural world” with escapist preoccupations over forests, excursions, nudism and other outdoor activity, ancient religious paganism and rites, “traditional” foods, etc.
- Sentimental opposition to industrial society, urbanization and departure from subsistence farming, folklore, etc.
- Phobias towards presumed “threats” by “others”, especially “racial” (“Oriental”, “Jew”, “Slav”, “African”, etc.)
- Entropic worldview of “finite resources” spawning claims of unjust distribution, thereby presuming justified oppression and extermination – for Lebensraum, Ancient Destiny, etc. beyond national borders
- Revival of pagan cults and their polytheistic associations with that mythical “natural world”
- Emphasis upon concepts of a staid, entropic “natural order”
- Hostility and condemnation to those perceived as ignoring such “natural order”
- Higher, Brahman-like status for those (fascists) who pay homage to such mythical “natural order”
- Glorification of “instinct” and animalistic qualities, often including even veneration for animals above (fascist-stigmatized) humans

So, are warnings about such fascism “ad hominem” attacks against neo-Malthusians? Implicitly yes, because identifying “fascists” in the open automatically rallies many to that magnificent life-affirming cause of progress, justice and anti-racism that we recall from history. Neo-Malthusians then tremble before their harvest of enmity: from the Russian Army to Mossad, Catholic moralists to secular liberalists, French and Polish guerrillas to Abyssinian nationalists and Italian Socialists, American New Deal industrialists to Social Democrat unionists.

When identified as the fascists that they are, neo-Malthusians start to think that the whole world's against them.

But that's only because...it is

Wrong, Efranke.

>>I think even Pericles realised that his "allies" in this debate were utterly irrational, unhinged fruitcakes who contributed nothing other than absurd ad hominem attacks against all those who dared question massive population growth in this country and the plutocracy which is behind it.<<

Of course, you wouldn't describe this little spray of yours as "ad hominem", would you. It is such a well-reasoned, articulate defence of your position.

>>I took the time to give a lengthy response to your questions.<<

You answered what you wanted my questions to be, not what they were. This was the reason for my decision to leave the field so that you could talk up your self-righteousness amongst yourselves.

Here's your first "lengthy response":

>>For instance, [Pericles] ominously warns us that any attempt to curb population growth would result in Australia becoming a scary, China-like dystopian state, replete with punishments for unauthorised pregnancies.<<

Show me where.

And here's the next.

>>Pericles thinks that reducing immigration is somehow immoral. It is Australia’s obligation, he informs us, to accept the world’s poor, miserable masses.<<

There you go again. Show me where I said that.

And you have the blind cheek to describe my contribution as "straw-man". Strewth.

You made no attempt to answer the questions I actually asked. Instead you indulged yourself in a bit of grandstanding based on what you imagined you'd like me to have said.

Nobody, for example, has had the courage to tackle the most obvious of questions: what is the economic impact of the measures you are proposing? If you had made it that far, I would have asked: what is the political impact of those measures, and their cost?

It is all very well continually spouting the mantra "growth is bad, growth is bad", and I know that it makes you feel all warm and squishy inside when you do it, but there are some hard realities involved too.

But I wouldn't expect anyone to actually do the sums, because you have become so fond of ignoring reality, in favour of feeling smug.

Ludwig, you provide some examples of civilizations that either died out, or moved on.

A couple of questions occur to me.

>>But the size of the population compared to the ability of the hinterland to provide food to comfortably support it has been the critical imbalance in each case. It is a pretty fair bet that the belief system elucidated by Rick S was entrenched in each case.<<

Are the countries/locations where these civilizations lived before they "collapsed" unoccupied today? Or was the disappearance of one bunch of people, to be replaced by another bunch of people with better technology, simply one of this planet's little lessons?

Adapt and cope, would be the lesson that I draw from these stories. And I have no doubt that with a growing population, we will do precisely the same in years to come.

It won't be the same, perhaps, as the idyllic existence we presently enjoy, nor possibly will it be quite as comfortable.

But it seems to me that in your desire to maintain the standard of living we have attained, your position is highly selfish.

You are in fact denying future generations their very existence.

They - given the choice - might prefer to live in somewhat more crowded conditions than we presently experience, rather than not live at all.

I recommended a book to you earlier in this thread. It is about life in a country far more crowded, and with far more folk living a life of - what we would describe as - hardship. Yet the pages are not filled with despair. Why might this be?

Step off your soap box and think about it for a moment.

Your population management proposals ultimately deal with people, and their choices. If you determine that those people are unable to make the "right" decision on their own, you are prepared - selflessly, proudly and bravely - to make it for them.

What does that make you?

The saviour of the human race?

Or simply someone who is prepared to sacrifice other people's free will for their own selfish benefit?

It really is very humorous how the growthist overpopulation deniers blather on about free will (Pericles, no one can take away your free will, only your ability to exercise it), fascism, and other entertaining topics. The fascistic basis of growthism is evident in each and every post these rubes make, in the vitriol, histrionics, deceptive statements, and deliberate misrepresentation of what many population control advocates are saying. But each and every post by this crowd is, de facto, an admission that their plan to destroy the planet is being threatened by the sane and civilized voices who are saying "Wait just a minute. What are we doing to ourselves and to this planet?"

Should these fascist, growthist overpopulation deniers be worried? You bet! Their ideology is finally under attack on a number of fronts, their greed and shortsightedness are being exposed, and their willingness to destroy this planet for the sake of "business as usual" is being challenged again and again. I can't think of a better way for these people to promote more opposition, and bring us closer to a sustainable way of life, than for them to continue to do what they're doing. Each post is an acknowledgment that those of us who truly care about the planet, and about future generations, are on the right track. So, keep it up, Pericles, mil-observer, and Cheryl (especially you, mil-observer, as your posts are priceless). And thanks!

Come on Pericles, this is getting a bot rhetorical even or you.

Future generations do not exist yet. It's stretching it a bit to argue about the living standard prefernces of people who don't exist (it doesn't stop the Christians though, they believe in predetermination).

Besides, I don't see anywhere where Ludwig et al. advocate not having future generations at all. That would indeed be silly. Nor do I see many of them advocating no migration either, no matter what their opponents say.

There doesn't seem like much hope in mainatining the world's population at 6 or 7 billion (more than has ever existed at one time), does it? Can't we at least allow people to control their own reproduction and make the individual choice of whether they want to raise the next generation? I'm for that at least, but when someone mentions it, the Catholics and fundies accuse them of wanting Gulags and death camps and nature worship and no more children. I'm not that keen on death camps. I even think mil-observer is very close to comparing the sustanable population advocates to pagan child sacrificers.
Not yet though, let see how long it takes.

Again, it's clear that Rick S (perhaps the Rick Slovitt of yesterday's banal puff piece in Melbourne's Sunday Age) and his comrades daren't refute the obvious similarities between historically recorded fascist sentiments and their latest parallels in revivalist Malthusian revivalism. Such ideological inheritances I spell out in detail, as they are well known even to dilletante students of modern history. But the neo-Malthusians are unable to challenge even one single point of my historico-ideological references to fascism!

C'mon Rick! How is anti-racism and anti-genocidalism "fascist"? It's wasteful retorting with a facile, puerile counter-accusation of "fascist" without explaining why. Tell us the ideological components that justify such a description. Surely you know enough history? Or do you rather need some references? You'll have serious trouble equating "fascism" with "life affirmation", and regenerative and reproductive principles of innovative civilization and adaptability, and broadly egalitarian human progress and civilization!

But no need for Rick to take that much personal umbrage. I don't refer so much to himself personally as some card-carrying member of The Grand Council of Fascists or the Sturmabteilung - whether or not he is indeed the strangely alienated American Slovitt, with apparently so little grasp of America's own pivotal historical role in civilizational progress.

No, I refer not to the neo-Malthusians themselves as truly leading or definitive "fascists", but rather just the sum of their ideas, fantasies and outright fabrications – an internal and mostly hidden fascism, however thriving it so obviously is in their dark, putrid souls.

For one, most neo-Malthusians lack the guts, honesty and decisiveness to follow through explicitly on the implications of their vague, symbolic anti-human sentiments and ideas.

For another, the neo-Malthusians here on OLO are small anchovies and peanuts in the broad political trend of neo-fascism today. In relation to policy and state identity, the misanthropic jokers here act more like fertilizer. When actual policy-makers effect neo-Malthusian and other genocidal projects, they do so coldly, after much consultation, assessment and manipulation of public perception, and with very little overt trace left of their truly fascist heritage and deliberations.

Anti-genocidism?

Now that’s a great example of gross distortion and hyperbolic misrepresentation of what others say, and certainly doesn’t promote credibility with any reasonable and sane human being. How are the humane policies of education, providing contraception, concern for the quality of life of future generations, and so on genocide? The hard realities of Peak Oil, peak soil, water shortages, collapse of ocean fish stocks, and loss of biodiversity are prompting thinking people everywhere to look to mitigate the looming disaster. On the other hand, the growthist, fascist, overpopulation deniers are doing their absolute best to make sure that a population crash happens as soon as possible, and that we leave behind a polluted, crowded, resource-depleted planet for the survivors. Their hatred for future generations is clear, and they are the true, anti-human killers here.

And history shows us that the growthist fascists pop up repeatedly, typically just before a population crash, or the death of a civilization. It’s too bad that the growthist, fascist, overpopulation deniers on this forum are such predictable small fish, and have nothing new to say, as I’ve had much more interesting and original discussions with some of the larger ones.

Oh, and mil-observer, there is more than one Rick S in the world. Your comment again underscores your fear of the facts about overpopulation, as you clearly haven’t even bothered to follow links posted in this forum. Those who have know how inane your supposition was. Keep it up. You are a shining example to close-minded, fascistic, overpopulation deniers everywhere, and each post you make only reinforces that point. Thanks for making my task easier, just as the mil-observer clones in other discussion forums have done as well.

Yes, my own (and allied) positions are firmly and uncompromisingly "anti-genocidalist"; no distortion or misrepresentation there. And not surprising that neo-Malthusians again try morphing the debate (again at the eleventh hour) into one supposedly about “contraception” and “education”! Who'd have thought that such mundane, status-quo business would generate such passion among them?!

And yes, still the neo-Malthusians shirk the history student's most basic task here i.e., to engage with those important challenges: how to identify clear distinctions between neo-Malthusian attitudes now and those fascist precedents of nature-worship, Malthusian thought patterns on population and resources, and other associated primordialism and irrationalism? Then the question becomes: “how to justify a mentality and worldview that has come before (fascism) and been so thoroughly discredited?” Well, they cannot.

"Peak oil", "peak soil", "peak toil" - all articles of a fanatic's bleak and desperate faith. Some quotes to come from Ehrlich perhaps, or will we just keep dropping his "esteemed" name? Now there's a reference! A writer whose predictions were emphatically disproved by facts within a decade! Maybe he should have tried the horses or greyhounds instead?

All that should normally be harmless enough, but contrivances about "finite resources" are meant also to deny resources to those up-and-coming, dynamic populations not afflicted by such smugness, pampered lifestyle, laziness, inefficiency, over-abundance and imperialistic greed as so long and obviously characterizing the (overwhelmingly western) neo-Malthusians themselves. As runner stated earlier: "Seems like the author feels it would be wrong for many more to enjoy the same standard of living that he has." If we had a simple problem of supply shortage, then that's no problem for adaptability. But when the rich *insist* and *choose* to assert or even predict supply problems in order to blame the source of demand on younger, poor populations - then we know just what we're dealing with i.e., the same exclusive, narcissistic and imperialistic filth that has oppressed, stolen and murdered for centuries. But as my specific historico-ideological descriptions convey earlier, that same narcissism and imperialism expresses its even more barbaric and truly fascist potential when under pressure, as now,

[cont.]

with the west's demographic decrepitude, monetarist market implosions, and the developing world's increasing realization of potential.

Two currents of particularly irrational and toxic "argument" pollute and retard this thread:

1) Neo-Malthusians make anti-historical claims or, at least, refuse to even consider prominent historical precedents where Malthusian dogma visited complementary notions of: Lebensraum; "resettlement in the east"; euthanasia of those deemed not worth living, and; various other associated Eugenicist determinations about humanity's statistical situation in Europe. But theirs is a “meta-history” where the students are told to leave evidential facts at the door.

2) In supporting their above-identified denial of history itself, neo-Malthusians ignore or deny the crucial factor of "human agency". That's no surprise really given the barely suppressed self-loathing and guilt apparent as neo-Malthusians' deep personal baggage, and their yet greater hatred for the majority of humanity – a hatred given more zeal and urgency out of the fear that numbers will inevitably reveal the mediocrity and unjustified privileges of their pampered few.

But in other senses there, neo-Malthusians try to depoliticize all issues of economics, agriculture, infrastructure, and social and political organization; for them the Malthusian template of "finite resources" is the source of all ultimate meaning, and it is absolute. The neo-Malthusians' case is a circular one with bets each way. On the one hand, they claim human population is some irrational monster that will inevitably outrun resources, thereby causing ruin. On the other hand, wherever famine, market crash, epi-/pandemic or even war depletes a population, they put on their black-tinted glasses and say: “I told you so – too many people!” If readers are unsure on this, check my demolition of snake-oil “historian” Jared Diamond's neo-Malthusian slime on the case of Rwanda's 1994 genocide (see cross thread, starting: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8838#140663 ).

Bereft of both historical perspective and imagination, the only “finite resource” here is that within neo-Malthusians' own heads.

Have they “peak neurons”? Too polite to say that they peaked too early; their argument has never scaled any heights, instead wallowing on a flat, bleak, featureless desert, and one below sea level at that.

Again, mil-observer, I believe that you have posted too quickly, without taking thoughtful time to edit your post, so I have taken that liberty, and here it is:

with the west's demographic decrepitude, monetarist market implosions, and the developing world's increasing realization of potential.

Two currents of particularly irrational and toxic "argument" pollute and retard this thread:

1) Growthist overpopulation deniers fail to examine historical evidence, where civilizations have crashed time and time again for the very reasons a growing chorus of reasoned and informed voices say we are on the verge of collapse ourselves.

2) In supporting their above-identified denial of history itself, growthist overpopulation deniers ignore or deny the crucial factor of "human agency". That's no surprise really given the barely suppressed self-loathing and guilt apparent as growthist's deep personal baggage, and their yet greater hatred for the majority of humanity and for the future our our children - a hatred given more zeal and urgency out of the fear that numbers will inevitably reveal the mediocrity and unjustified privileges of their pampered few.

But in other senses there, growthist overpopulation deniers try to depoliticize all issues of economics, agriculture, infrastructure, and social and political organization; for them the growthist doctrine of "infinite resources" is the source of all ultimate meaning, and it is absolute. The growthist overpopulation deniers' case is a circular one with bets each way. On the one hand, they claim human population is some unnatural entity with no limits. On the other hand, wherever famine, market crash, epi-/pandemic or even war depletes a population, they put on their rose-colored glasses and say: “Okay, let's do it all over again” If readers are unsure on this, check historian Ronald Wright's pointed analysis.

Bereft of both historical perspective and imagination, the only “finite resource” here is that within growthist's own heads.

Too afraid to acknowledge the truth, their argument has never scaled any heights, and they have absolutely no backup plan for when their growthist pyramid scheme collapses.

Bugsy, I had to resort to rhetorical questions, since the anti-growth brigade consistently refuses to answer direct ones.

>>Come on Pericles, this is getting a bot rhetorical even or you.<<

To illustrate this, I'll now put it as bluntly as I can:

1. What, in the opinion of the anti-growthists, is the optimum population of i) Australia and ii) the world.

2. Given the above, how does the team intend to reach and/or stabilize the population at those levels

3. As a corollary to 2), what do they foresee as the economic impact of these actions on i) Australian pensioners and ii) Ghanaian subsistence farmers.

Stand back.

Waffle follows, in billows and waves.

Actually Pericles, you and I both know that you won't get a consistent answer from asking specific questions with open ended answers to a general crowd of inidviduals with varying degrees of interest.

Therefore, if you think the only way to get a consistent answer is to ask them of yourself, maybe you should ask yourself the same questions.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you think the optimum population should be?
How would this happen?
Do you think it will stabilise by itself in sort of self-limiting equilibribrium?

These are not rhetorical, I am very interested in the answer.

And further, Pericles, you have left unanswered the questions about plan "B."

What is the backup plan for energy, and where are the existing energy sources which have the density, portability, and flexibility of fossil fuels, and oil in particular?

How will we produce and transport sufficient food to, supply energy to, maintain the infrastructure of, and keep the same level of economic activity required to support our current population, let alone an increased population in the event that any of the peak predictions are true?

Given the arguments that our very complexity makes us even more vulnerable to catastrophe, what mechanism currently exists to lead us to an outcome that is different from past collapsed civilizations

RickS. They only have one very nebulous answer. "Technology"

David

im quite sick of you lot...who think there isnt enough room for as many as we can squeeze onto the earth...clearly your too lost in your eugenics solutions to clearly comprehend the ago old solutions talked about in the 30/50's

where we have skyscrapers of food grown hydroponicly..[intensive farming in highrises]..feedlots of beasts in skyscrapers...you lot are so fixated on the horisontal cure..of murdering people six feet under you miss the lateral cures

what happend to greening of the desert's..and the hundreds of other solutions put forward by the real-thinkers..not you single solution types..that say give me a number then cull..[kill]..down you it

there is no energy problem..[what we have is an energy cartel,..that wants to hold its monopoly till it gets its total control..[there is unlimeted free-energy,as i have posted so often[magnetic moters..google them on you tube]..provide free-energy for a hundred years on a single set of magnets..[for egsample]

then there is hydrogen..[from water]..or google at you tube salt/water that burns..but you lot have got your minds so closed off..are so set on your fixation of killing off those you deem geneticlly infiriour..you got no clue,..nor seek to find any cure,..except how to kill as many off in one go as possable in one go

as i have said to the master minds..that think to rule..[what more impressive to rule over million..,billions or trillions...to rule a great people or rule over slaves..how come..you guys/gals..sissies are so frightend...so closed minded...

so fixated on your delusions..you only see mass-muder as the cure..so you worthless eaters..alone..can hope to survive..[stop reading the spin from the merchants of fear..start seeing the visions from those not afraid of seeing the light

[why do you lot..love to dwell in the dark ignorance?]..dare to let go your fears..live and let live..search for solutions not ever more problems

OUG: Let's not forget that this is a concerted campaign right now. In Tasmania, they're trying to push euthanasia through; that's with the Hitlerian argument about “ending the life that's not worth living”. Hear them bleat about “quality of life” in these contexts too! Then when the health system corrodes even further, the intention is to foster conditions in which many of the elderly will seriously consider the Nitschke-Kevorkian option. These trends are clear in current US and UK deliberations, budgeting and policy (arguably already more so in the UK's case).

But yes, fear - that's the essence of their case. It's a package of several fears together driving this euphoric chanting session in their well-stocked panic room. From all their discordant, satanic din, that particular fear emotion carries through consistently...

1) Fear that, with higher living standards and access for those smarter and stronger in developing countries, neo-Malthusians will be revealed as quite undeserving of the privileges into which they were born;
2) Fear that those same innovative people from the previously poor and desperate will compel the privileged neo-Malthusians to compete - they cannot, and will not;
3) Fear that they will have to try improvization, adaptability, and greater efficiencies in their dealings with society and the environment, as long typical in developing countries;
4) Fear of cultural diversity and the intensified mixing together of people – hence their uncritical opposition to migration.
5) Fear that their old imperial hegemony is over, forever. This fear is similar to that at 1) and 4) above, but applies to a broader contexts of national status and contrived “race” identities.

Malcolm King and Cheryl previously pointed out the likelihood that this depopulation filth will be “the Greens' GST”.

But the GST itself sounded the death knell of socio-economic justice for the working class in Australia.

This “greens' GST” of neo-Malthusian cull just sounds the death knell.

Ah yes, technology will save us.

This is the same technology that allowed us to invent the infernal combustion engine, which certainly cleaned streets of horse poop in some countries, but which has also led to urban sprawl, air pollution, and the ability to spread viruses and disease around the globe at or near the speed of sound.

This is the same technology that has allowed us to cure diseases and prolong life, but which now has us scrambling to deal with an aging population and soaring health care costs.

This is the same technology that allowed us to invent beautiful ocean liners (we won't mention the Titanic), but which also allowed us to invent factory ships and bottom trawlers, leading to the collapse of ocean fish stocks and devastation of the ocean floor ecosystem.

This is the same technology that allowed us to split the atom, which led to peaceful uses, but which also contaminates Canada's Great Lakes with radionuclides due to mining and power generation activities, and which has given us the capability to destroy most of the complex life on this planet.

Our species has shown remarkable cleverness in inventing things, but has a piss-poor record of predicting their side effects and long term consequences. Unless the Law of Unintended Consequences is somehow repealed, our ape-like fascination with shiny toys and objects may destroy us long before any of the other problems we're creating.

Ricketts: "technology...has given us the capability to destroy most of the complex life on this planet."

Well, that's lucky for one simple, gullible messenger himself there - a soul in no danger at all!

Pericles: keep your money, and count this as yet another of the neo-Malthusian fascists' unsustainable cases in just another pit where they like getting together to bay at the moon.

They still avoid all elements of the historical case against fascism, and the identical parallels against current neo-Malthusianism. The Rick entity can only try cloning my arguments repeatedly in the same puerile tactic of copycat riposte.

Here is the clinch, and the winner for Pericles' bet: Rick Shaw compromises his whole team's own “case” directly by lifting my original sentence into: 'the only “finite resource” here is that within growthist's own heads'. Therefore, the neo-Malthusian cultist blatantly self-contradicts, admitting that there is no “finite resource” problem in the discussion's original context!

Forsaking reason for mere show, the entity thus proves itself a stubborn, instinctive “fascist”; fair to label it so now, because it makes no actual defence beyond the puerile cloning/copycat technique of provocational riposte. But on that “finite resource” issue, it thereby concedes its abject defeat, however unintentionally, and wins Pericles his bet.

Any other Malthusian book title to mention, just to deflect attention from their non-argument while trying to appear “learned”? Rule out Jared Diamond: he was already turned into “toast” right here on OLO.

And Pericles, your bet was firmer still given Rick Springfield's incontinence on a cross thread (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8990&page=0 ), where the neo-Malthusian groupie finally admitted his ideological bent: “Mother Nature is not a democracy”. Yep, the Gaia Cult is as totalitarian as we expected all along: "law of the jungle". Taken with the other feverish points of fear and loathing, that's pretty close to a direct admission of fascism, and that should seal your winnings with a tip thrown in.

Posted by Icuryy2P
I do not understand!
I haven't seen so much scratching on the hen-house floor since Chicken Little took centre stage. And what motivates you Barbie Dolls who sink to despise the Hanrahans of this world? Who ARE you people? What do you hope to achieve? In all of the mutterings on these pages I haven't seen the ghost of an Emily Pankhurst. It seems to me that you all need a good dose of introspection.
My purpose in joining this discussion is to submit to you that I have a plan. In the hope that one at least of you is prepared to entertain the prospect of conversion from "teacher" to "doer" I invite you to examine your convictions, your determination and your courage to enter a voyage of new endeavour.
My plan will open the door of your mind to lateral thinking. Are you up to the challenge?
Icuryy2P

So Bugsy, you scoff at my rhetorical questions, and answer direct questions with questions.

I'll answer yours anyway, in the pathetically forlorn hope that you will do the same. Silly of me, I know, but anyway...

I don't have a view as to our optimum population. I don't think that it is possible to calculate one.

And yes, it will reach this point - if there is one - without executive orders from you.

Yes Pericles, I scoff.

I agree that it is probably not possible to calculate an "optimum" population size, which begs the question: why did you ask what you consider a question with no answer, claiming that it was a 'direct' one, and then protest the lack of an answer?

Why is it impossible to calculate an ‘optimum’? Because to answer this we would need agreed criteria for what optimum is. What would constitute optimum population size? Would it be maximum-carrying-capacity? One in which ‘future generations’ thank us for their cramped and calorie-restricted lives? Maximum-carrying-capacity would of course make millions starve as soon as there were the smallest of food shortages, so I don’t think this would be considered ‘optimal’ by most.

Perhaps the ‘optimum’ size should be what allows us to live at a high plateau of population where the birth rate matches the death rate and recycling of all nutrients takes place in perfect harmony and we have a terrific standard of living because we have all the energy and resources to ensure that this can happen in perpetuity? I'd like that optimum. I'd also like to believe that it can happen without anyone lifting a finger to ensure that it does. But that optimum is not going to happen, is it. At least it won’t happen without serious discussion and some major policy decisions (and not just about population) in just about every country on the planet.

I have been deeply concerned about food security and how that works at local levels since I found out that population growth has been exceeding crop yield increases for some time. There are some issues that have been raised in the scientific literature: reduced availability of phosphorus fertilizers, oil, arable farmland, potable water, fresh water for agriculture, agricultural diseases and many more. Some of them may turn out to not be worth worrying about, some may, but either way I think they are worth considering and population is directly related to all of these.

Can’t people at least talk about it without being called eugenist child killers or imperialist holier-than-thou wafflers?

Within her/his typical Shrill Overpopulation Denier (S.O.D.) rant, mil-observer comments “Rick Shaw compromises his whole team's own “case” directly by lifting my original sentence into: 'the only “finite resource” here is that within growthist's own heads'. Therefore, the neo-Malthusian cultist blatantly self-contradicts, admitting that there is no “finite resource” problem in the discussion's original context!”

Given what I have already posted at this forum, how anyone in her or his right mind could misinterpret “here” to mean anything other than this discussion forum is … wait a minute, I believe I just answered my own question.

I think I’ll change the name to mal-observer, to more accurately reflect reality.

Is this the same sort of observant comment that was the basis for mal-observer’s self-declared refutation of Jared Diamond? It’s pretty clear that mal-observer is a legend in his, or her, own mind.

In any case, I have every expectation that s/he will continue with her/his blatant misrepresentation of others’ comments (a typical ploy by fascists, by the way, borrowed from Machiavelli), and I look forward to her/his further great advertising for our cause…you know…the future.

Avoidance of the historical evidence of collapsed civilizations, of the present evidence of our own imminent collapse, and of the issue of the lack of a plan when Liebig’s Law of the Minimum comes calling, may feel good as the sand trickles around your ears, but you leave the rest of yourself exposed to the consequences…doomed to repeat it, and so on.

Oh, and I have a question for you mal-observer: you seem to take issue with my statement that Mother Nature is not a democracy. That implies that you believe that She is, so, if that is your view, in what ways is She a democracy? Please provide examples to support your point of view. Come on, you can do this. You can answer just one question in a reasonable and rational manner. Can’t you? Or are you just another typical troll? (Rick anticipates a dodge, but hopes for the best………..)

Beautifully put, Bugsy.

No, seriously.

>>I agree that it is probably not possible to calculate an "optimum" population size<<

Let's keep that firmly in mind.

>>which begs the question: why did you ask what you consider a question with no answer, claiming that it was a 'direct' one, and then protest the lack of an answer?<<

Check again.

I protested only that you answered my question with another question, not that you couldn't answer it.

Because, as you and I at least have agreed, there can be no direct and simple answer.

Others, you may notice from time to time, believe that they have such an answer.

http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com/

"Earth's human population is over 10 times what is optimal"

That would make "optimal" somewhere under a billion. Does this make sense?

You and I can agree that it doesn't, Bugsy, but there are some who disagree with us. Which is of course where the problem starts.

I'm also in full agreement with you here too...

>>Perhaps the ‘optimum’ size should be what allows us to live at a high plateau of population where the birth rate matches the death rate and recycling of all nutrients takes place in perfect harmony and we have a terrific standard of living because we have all the energy and resources to ensure that this can happen in perpetuity? I'd like that optimum. I'd also like to believe that it can happen without anyone lifting a finger to ensure that it does. But that optimum is not going to happen, is it.<<

Not without a whole lot of pain, that's true.

The problem I have with the anti-growth spruikers here, is that they wish this pain exclusively to fall on other people, and not on themselves.

They appear to relish the acquisition of an opportunity to control the lives of others - to decide on their behalf whether or not they should procreate, for example - from a potent, but malodorous, combination of the "moral high ground" and a comfortable way of life that they have done absolutely nothing to deserve or to earn.

Pericles

"The problem I have with the anti-growth spruikers here, is that they wish this pain exclusively to fall on other people, and not on themselves."

Do we? Evidence please.

I don't have any children, nor intend to, I live in a very modest home, drive small economical car, recycle/reuse, buy op-shop clothes, grow herbs and some veggies.

In other words I walk the talk and I am sure plenty of other people for a sustainable future do so as well.

Also, I find the term 'anti-growth' inaccurate, there is room to grow, learn, live and love without being a continual consumer. Why is growth misconstrued as relentless usage, consumption?

Taking time to paint or play music or write and read books is a kind of growth to which we all could aspire, instead of purchasing the latest plasma TV.

Another rancid, toxic and undercooked slice of fruitcake from Rick Santelli.

Over to the floor then. Is “Mummy Nature” a:

a) democracy?
b) monarchy?
c) theocracy?
d) socialist state?
e) fascist dictatorship?
f) all of the above, depending on season and/or particular phase of “climate change”?

But then, it's none of the above is it, because political systems are creations of human beings! Why pose such a cretinous concept in the first place? I suppose he'll now claim that it was all just some rhetorical flourish, as though stating “nature is not a democracy” was not meant to assign any ideological quality at all to the organic entity we know as “Earth”.

Now one point needs asserting here, as it keeps getting missed: civilizations collapse almost invariably due to the corruption, societal syndromes including general decadence, and warfare. Claims that Malthusian “population pressures”, “finite resources” and “climate change” brought about the end of the Roman Empire, for example, are bogus.

(Re-)Enter one hoaxster Jared Diamond. Readers can check the link: I wiped the floor with fraudulent Ivy League historian Jared Diamond, who jumped on an “eco-history” bandwagon obviously because he sensed a lot of interest from financier circles especially. Nobody challenged my fast demolition of Diamond's hoax over 1994 Rwanda – nobody. But I'm not boasting, because the task was so easy. But the neo-Malthusians want us to believe that someone so inept on 1994 Rwanda can be relied on to analyze such vastly more distant cases as ancient Roman civilization!

Btw Pericles: request min. 1 x beer from proceeds of your bet.

Ah, mal-observer in true form dodges the question, then puffs and preens him(or her)self all over again (did you get that tick from your hair?). Sad.

Ask a direct question, and this is what you get -- more good advertising for the sane and civilized among us who wish to leave the planet a better place than we found it.

"Evading the question" merely by identifying that it was constructed on delusion, falsehood and/or fantasy?

This guy's wacko - he must actually believe that the organic entity "Earth" is indeed a political system.

As I identified before, his implicit "system" for earth is necessarily "anti-democratic" which would, typically, define fascist and feudal-absolutist politics. A.k.a. "law of the jungle"; that's why such neo-Malthusian crackpots have no problem at all when health systems start getting more barbarically 'user pays', helping along die-offs especially among the elderly and the working poor.

Their mystical chants about "quality of life" also smooth the passage for compatible euthanasia legislation (as being pushed aggressively in Tasmania right now).

Thank you Pericles, that means more to me than you know.

Yes you did protest my answering a question with a question, but I did that for a very good reason, I wanted you to answer it first to show that you didn’t think that it had an answer. Although to be fair, you did try to predict the lack of a coherent answer before anyone even attempted to answer it.

Let’s pursue this idea of the unanswerable question a bit further. It doesn’t seem to stop a few commentators does it? I’d be willing to bet that is because they believe that they have all the criteria and data they need to make a calculation. But then again, they never seem to agree on an actual number do they? It seems to me that it is quite probable they make their calculations quite differently, very likely using varied criteria (to each other) and non-uniform (and probably incomplete) datasets. I’d also be willing to bet that whatever political agenda a specific proponent is using the issue for takes a part in the calculation as well. This non-uniformity does tend to make them an easy target doesn’t it?

So, when someone does come up with any number, it is a relatively easy task to criticise the calculations and make them out to be some sort of insane prophets, spouting ridiculous predictions of catastrophic doom like a bunch of modern day Cassandras.

This is why I answered your question with a question, to gain your help to expose it for what it was, a rhetorical device designed to further heap further scorn on the unwary zealots.

However, I still retain my concerns independently of them and their ideological opposites. I am also not particularly keen on pagan fascism nor culling en masse all those who oppose me.

And there’s one thing that niggles me in the back of my mind and won’t go away: even though she was cursed and treated quite badly……

Cassandra was right.

Well, not quite, Bugsy.

>>when someone does come up with any number, it is a relatively easy task to criticise the calculations and make them out to be some sort of insane prophets,<<

My point was not to question the numbers that pop out.

I was trying to encourage the anti-growth folk to understand more fully what they were proposing. And to guide them towards the thought that maybe forcing their views on others, while chanting "it is for your own good", is not quite the behaviour of a democratic, caring, well-mannered society.

Talk is very easy. As I have said before, simply saying "wouldn't it be nice if..." is entirely insufficient grounds for controlling other people's lives, and depriving them of the right to choose.

As with any population - animals, insects, vegetation - there will emerge over time some kind of equilibrium. If we are lucky, our scientists will get ahead of the curve in terms of necessities like water, food and energy. If we aren't, then it will indeed be a fairly sticky conclusion to man's span on this planet.

Either way, I'd prefer not to live under a dictatorship that limits my actions, thoughts and ideas while we're finding out which way we will go.

mal-observer, in his usual tactful way, comments "Another rancid, toxic and undercooked slice of fruitcake from Rick Santelli.

Over to the floor then. Is “Mummy Nature” a:

a) democracy?
b) monarchy?
c) theocracy?
d) socialist state?
e) fascist dictatorship?
f) all of the above, depending on season and/or particular phase of “climate change”?

But then, it's none of the above is it, because political systems are creations of human beings!"

Good, I'm glad to see that you support my original statement that Mother Nature is not a democracy. We're making progress, one tiny step at a time.

Now, lie down on the couch here, and let's talk about your antisocial behaviors. Let's start with how they have affected your personal relationships with others, and how those behaviors typically stem from a massive inferiority complex, and from lack of control in your personal life. I've got my notepad out, and I'm waiting comfortably in my chair here. I'm sure I won't be disappointed.

Pericles

There you go again, claiming that the pro-sustainable crowd are all about control and regulation. As if we have free choice right now? Where is the choice between environmentally sound transport and petrol guzzlers? The choice between minimal packaging and over packaging? The choice between goods made to last or made to self-destruct? The balance between a stable population and over-population? The impetus for water storage on properties of both residents and business? Clean power sources?

BTW we do not have the type of freedom which you so fervently defend now. It is a 'freedom' that a small percentage of the planet's population actually enjoys: at the expense of developing sustainable practices.

Nor do you have the courtesy to reply to my question posted yesterday:

>>>"The problem I have with the anti-growth spruikers here, is that they wish this pain exclusively to fall on other people, and not on themselves."

Do we? Evidence please.<<<

Still waiting.

I agree, with that that whatever changes the climate results in, an equilibrium will be reached, but it will take more than the magic 'technology' wand to be waved to ensure that we can maintain the manner of living to which we have become accustomed. It will take:

COOPERATION

Too 'socialist'? We do need to find balance between the excesses of capitalism (GFC anyone?) and the over-regulation that is communism. By 'socialism' I refer to countries like the Netherlands, Sweden - these are very free and open societies - more libertarian than either Australia or the USA.

Humans, have always changed and adapted according to what we learn and the technology available, in the past this occured in a disparate manner, the difference now is that we need to change on a global basis.

Arguing you will somehow be ordered on how to live your life is a weak argument against the possibility of a world which can sustain all its inhabitants, simply by doing things differently. The industrial era overtook the agriculturally focused economy and will in turn give way to productive and sustainable economic practices. All we need is the will.

To be totally honest, Pericles, it doesn’t really appear to be the democratic, caring, well-mannered societies that are in the most trouble.

I think we just spotted an ideological belief:

<<As with any population - animals, insects, vegetation - there will emerge over time some kind of equilibrium>>

There, did you see it? “Equilibrium”. If you mean an oscillation around some kind of ‘mid-point’, then yes, that can happen but it is not a steady state. That mid-point is determined by resource availability, and by many measures we seem to be running out of a few. But the thing is: populations do not exist in equilibrium, they only seem to tend towards it. They are always ‘over’ or ‘under’ the ‘equilibrium’ point. One concern is that the further away from that point the population gets, the faster the crash that proceeds the zenith, and not all populations recover from big crashes.

I think that most of hysteria that is generated comes from the idea that we have built our civilisation on non-renewable resources, and that our efforts to change that have thus far been underwhelming.

Human population has been on an upward trend for quite some time now, a trend that if it were to reverse because of resource depletion would cause a lot of pain for many people across the globe. We can stand back and say the human race needs to naturally reach it’s equilibrium, but then I wonder how is that different from treating them like insects?

One thing that gives me hope is that in many developed countries across the world fertility is now below replacement despite government policies. Now, what is the commonality of these people that doesn’t exist in other countries? Reproductive choice, education, income, especially for women, comes to mind. Can’t we campaign to give people real choices? It is difficult when certain self-proclaimed ‘defenders of humanity’ are completely against those kinds of choices.

It is counterproductive for both sides to start calling all concerned people paganist-earth-worshippers or fascistic-anti-human-totalitarians. Of course, all sides have their own d!ckheads that push their own barrows.

First of all, my apologies to Fractelle.

>>Nor do you have the courtesy to reply to my question posted yesterday: "The problem I have with the anti-growth spruikers here, is that they wish this pain exclusively to fall on other people, and not on themselves. Do we? Evidence please"<<

This caused me to go back and look over the suggestions and proposals made by the anti-growthers on this thread, to find out what had given me this impression.

And you are right, there was nothing there to support my supposition.

In fact, there was nothing at all, by way of concrete proposals.

The only one that comes close is "stop immigration", and that is a view often expressed without the need for a dying planet to support it.

All the rest just mashed together into a general moan about how civilization is on its last legs.

You do appear to be the exception, Fractelle, by "walking the talk", as you put it. Unfortunately, like many others, I suspect, I don't have the opportunity to grow my own veggies - they don't flourish too well on a concrete balcony. I recycle too, and my only suit has had to last twelve years, with probably another dozen yet to go. My only car is over twenty years old, which creates some angst - it isn't as green as some more modern ones, but would I be doing the right thing to replace it, given the energy required to build a new one?

But it's not about individuals "doing the right thing". Unfortunately, our personal energy footprints are minuscule in the scheme of things. And however much we trim that footprint further, it is not actually addressing the problem.

I have just spent a boring half-hour going through this thread to see if I had missed just one, tangible and workable suggestion from the no-growth brigade.

And I hadn't.

Except for Fractelle's "do as I do" suggestion.

That's it.

And yes, Bugsy, "equilibrium" is not a steady state, but fluctuates in line with production/consumption.

Pericles

"it isn't as green as some more modern ones, but would I be doing the right thing to replace it, given the energy required to build a new one?"

You have made an excellent point here - I drive an elderly car also, it is very fuel efficient. Until prices come down AND there are enough energy efficient modern cars around so's I can buy a late model, rather than brand new, I will care for my current car.

You can check on your car's fuel efficiency at the following link:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

It's American, but you may find that your old car is better value than many modern cars. And can, therefore, feel smug and superior as I do at the petrol station while filling my car for a pittance alongside someone spending the equivalent to third world debt to fill their 4WD.

BTW; you have balcony you can grow herbs AND tomatoes, capsicums, chilis.

I revamped my PC by downloading Linux - nyah nyah Mr Gates. I buy excellent quality shoes which last for years - better for my feet and less wasteful and find superb and unique clothes at op-shops - much more fun scoring an Armani jacket for $20, than a piece of crap for $200 at some chain boutique.

I go to the market (when I can) near closing and buy up on the freshest and cheapest local produce. And its fun, I have a chinwag with other customers and the sellers - supermarkets? stupormarkets.

Come on people, make some suggestions for Pericles - he loves a challenge give him one

let me make exception to the comment re limited resources..[this cap and trade farce origonated from the oil/lobby..who has discovered many new oil wells..[and capped them to restrict supply

further many of the old wells are refilling..[further we havnt reached peaK OIL..[thats the half way mark...and when we look at the waste-age of oil in the past..[how many nigerian oil scemes run on a quick crab and run..[i expect no shortage of oil for the next hundred years at least]indeed ever..read on

by then we will be making oil from algie..[the figures on it are huge[the algie is recirculated in plastic bladders..[hung..much like the hops vines..collecting the energy of the sun in real time from the same algae source...the origonal black gold came from..

[except this is green..[carbon capturing gold]..lol..and its productive capacity..per hectare is bigger than any current agricultural croping currently in use

as previously postulated there is free energy..[magnetic drive instead of coal..then..[and heating water is best done by using friction..[go figure its cheaper to heat water by compression/friction...then there is the joe-cell making hydrgen from water[for free]...not ever bigger multi-nationalistic fee]

not to mention hydroponics grown under lights in highrises..[with the ewaste fed to beasts also living right in the self same highrises[naturally methane is collected from their excreta..[and piped into houses for cooking etc

in short we could fit 10 fold the people on but a fraction of the land we currently use...with a much better quality of life..as well as fullfill our mission to subdue the earth...for the benifit of all life and evolve spiritually way beyond these end time eugenics/doomsayers could comprehend

[As Pericles identifies, there's a serious lack of real leadership among the neo-malthusian Unsustainables. When there is such a lack combined with such obvious anti-civilization and anti-human zeal, particular forms of ideological absolutism fill the void. These side comments - around some genocidalists' compromising expressions - indicate just what ideological direction they mean]

Rick Teaser just keeps ticking the boxes on “fascist ideology”. In an earlier post, I identified the fascist-Malthusian idolatry and societal implications from such irrational devotion to the “Earth Mother” absolute:

'- Emphasis upon concepts of a staid, entropic “natural order”
- Hostility and condemnation to those perceived as ignoring such “natural order”
- Higher, Brahman-like status for those (fascists) who pay homage to such mythical “natural order”'

Not only did I not evade its absurd question (“is mummy a democracy?”), I hung the absurd question back around its own neck. In that way, the absurd question then resembled a big placard reading: “Rick = Fascist. Kick here”

But now it's posing as a shrink, which – in context - also appears to reflect some suitably genocidalist ambition. In the Nazi euthanasia program, some shrinks played the role of “gassing judge” when dealing with subjects “treated” on account of complaints that they were “work shy”, vagrant, or exhibited “anti-social” qualities, for example. Most of the other targets were mentally or physically handicapped; all slaughtered in tens of thousands in locked trucks with tubes feeding in Carbon Monoxide from the running engines.

Of course, all the murder was done with the express purpose of “benefit for future generations”.

This time the fascist leaves evidence that it wants us killed off.

<<And yes, Bugsy, "equilibrium" is not a steady state, but fluctuates in line with production/consumption.>>

Ah yes, Pericles, I can really see that you think that you know what you are talking about here. Your sentence would be much more at home in an economics textbook than an ecological one.

Production and consumption are economic terms, but then ecological theory is littered with economic theories, but even in economics equilibrium is assumed. That is, it doesn’t really exist. Equilibrium is often assumed in deterministic models. But reality is based in stochastic processes because the world is chaotic . Fluctuations around an ‘equilibrium’ only really exist in chemistry and physics. In biology, what seem to be equilibria are only ever temporary, ever changing when prevailing conditions change. Organisms die. Whole populations and species can and do die.

Natural history is full of examples from bacteria to butterflies to koalas and kangaroos, when a population increases past the carrying capacity of a local area, populations crash. Local extinctions happen.

I don't for a second believe that humans will become extinct, but that isn't the point.

I have come to understand though, that certain political groups seek to use certain real issues to further objectionable agendas. Anti-immigration groups for example. And then hyperbole abounds. I too find this objectionable, make no mistake about that. But I have also met some well-educated people that are concerned about population growth that are certainly not anti-human, nor selfish, racist, fascist, imperialist, ignorant, pagan earth worshippers, etc. They do not wish the ‘pain’ to be transferred to others either. They are truly concerned, about people and the planet and they don’t talk about it in public either. Three guesses as to why. I bet you can get it in one.

mal-observer comments "Of course, all the murder was done with the express purpose of “benefit for future generations”.

This time the fascist leaves evidence that it wants us killed off."

Exactly. With millions dying of starvation every year on this planet, with the current sixth great extinction of species and the collapse of ocean fish stocks and so on, our current system is doing exactly that--murdering with the express purpose of "benefit for future generations." Our fascistic economic system clearly wants us killed off. That is great insight on your part.

Keep up the self-therapy. It's good for you

Don't be silly, Bugsy.

>>I don't for a second believe that humans will become extinct...<<

Nothing is more certain.

It is simply a matter of time.

Yes, now I guess I am just being silly only contemplating the next few millennia.

OUG: The "peak oil" scam is massive, benefiting very rich, unproductive types a.k.a. speculative parasites, and their fellows among non-competitive oil tycoons. It was funny reading all the simpletons bleating about "peak oil" during the speculators' bigger price binges starting a couple of years ago. But it was really sick to see how "bio-fuel" lies helped along such misguided views and illusions of "peak oil" among the gullible, while pushing up staple food prices in a sporadic food crisis. Then the market oil prices plummeted, actual pump prices stayed higher than they should have (for debt servicing), proving "peak oilers" yet again to have no idea. They deserved outright dismissal from that case alone.

Instead, peak oilers' fanaticism keeps them going as if nothing happened. Yet the dynamics of those energy and food price fluctuations reflect an imperialist barbarism that encourages the delusions of those who actually enjoy hating many other people (preferably people who are poor and have different “race” characteristics).

Take for example the imperialist treatment of forests in Indonesia. Nasty, onerous debt burdens have compelled an often furious rate of deforestation for palm oil plantations, whereby the quick sales from timber become supplanted by steadier income from that food staple. But the western-led “bio-fuel” crime (starting with such war criminals as George W. and J. Winston Howard) made some regions of Indonesia fall into that monetarist trap of pumping human foodstuff into a heavily manipulated petrodollar market.

The ensuing so-called “food crisis” brought from speculators caused waves of malnutrition and other privation to many millions of children, including in Indonesia, especially in the regions. Meanwhile, many soft-headed westerners had just one associated concern: orangutans! In some heavily funded orangutan reserves, westerners pay over USD 5,000 for the loving care of one beast. That's the kind of money most Indonesian kids in those areas could never hope to see for their own nutrition and education.

[apologies to RS: I identified him as a common garden “fascist”, but his bestial affections would earn him the more specific “Nazi” tag. Think Hitler's dog “Blondi” and Goering's conservation reserves for bison]

Ah, mal-observer. A shrill overpopulation denier, and now a peak oil denier. Does it get any better? Keep it up. Catharsis can be a good thing. Let all those demons out, but please clean up the mess on my couch when you're done. Thanks.

Yes, we do pity you, mal-observer, and your pathetic appeal to the site administrator is representative of the reasons why. Clearly, you need more couch time.

Running out of arguments, unable to bare your soul and take control of your life, showing for all the world that you are a Peak Oil Denier and a Shrill Overpopulation Denier (a POD and a SOD), it’s now time to move on to reality. Are you up for it?

Human population growth is killing this planet, and it’s only a matter of time before undemocratic Mother Nature fights back. We have no plan for the future, other than grow, grow, grow. Others have likened that to the way a cancer behaves.

Why do you hate future generations so much that you want so badly, and are doing your utmost, to leave them with a polluted, crowded, resource-depleted planet, and vulnerable to a Malthusian collapse? Then again, perhaps you really are a closet Malthusian, and you are just doing your best to make his predictions come true.

Malthus wasn’t wrong, just a bit ahead of his time.

Maybe Tim Flannery's loitering around here? You know, Flannery who mooted pumping the atmosphere with sulphur to prevent Global Warming! Nasty crank and "Oz of the Year" Flannery officially backs Kanck's neo-Malthusian, one-child-policy activists too, and their Australian depopulation target of 7 million (his name plugged them on their website when I checked a couple of months ago). So we can be sure this crowd really does have significant extremist push in Australia's mainstream political landscape.

Anyway, still for the record, even though the fascist thinks I'm in dialogue with it, the following summarizes the main compromising statements and associated premises confirmed by the most blatantly fascist bent on these threads:

1) Despite neo-Malthusians' scientific pretensions, the planet Earth is a mythical entity a la pagan primordialism ("Mother Nature", "Earth Mother", etc.);
2) Earth has its own organic political system above and beyond human agency;
3) By that "political system", Earth is "undemocratic";
4) Those who supplicate before Earth Godhead's absolute power are blessed with special insight and status as "saviors";
5) Those who ignore, disbelieve or doubt such absolute and undemocratic planetary authority are in severe breach of sacred law, and must be regarded as "threats" to an assumed (and always undefined) "equilibrium";
6) Growth in human population is like "cancer";
7) Conditions of economic, nutritional or environmental privation are not due to human agency, but to the impassive and corrective harshness of The Immutable, All-Powerful Earth Mother;
8) Immigration is an "evil" against the "sacred equilibrium", and;
9) Some neo-Malthusians (most conspicuously VKKK3AU) openly expressed racist hostility over immigration and non-English/non-Queen ownership of Rio Tinto, for example.
10) Animals have "rights" i.e., recourse to legal status and redress in civilized processes of jurisprudence;
11) A certain (rarely specified) excess of humans somehow threatens those sacred, immutable rights of animals.
12) Due to the simple presumption of an equation around "sacred equilibrium", such "animal rights" trump any that may be claimed by a certain large number of humans i.e., approximately 13 million in Australia, and at least 3 billion worldwide).

They're Nazis, or at least fellow travellers.

Don't be too hard on mil-observer.

Look up the Citizen's Electoral Council and Lyndon LaRouche, and understand that M-O believes every word of of it.

When someone is convinced that Queen Elizabeth II is secretly in direct control of the US army, what can you do but extend them pity and hope they don't hurt themselves too much when they use cutlery?

Yes! Now a Fabian toady has raised his blood banner too, all in the cause of anti-human, eugenicist nutbaggery.

Great work, Milob. You and Cheryl seem to have proved conclusively that anyone arguing for human life quality over human life quantity is a moral degenerate. That raises the question of what to do with us? A badge? Round us up and put us in a correctional camp(assuming you believe that human being have the capacity to change their opinions)? You couldn't just let a bunch of moral degenerates walk about freely, could you? But perhaps this discussion would be better left for another thread.

How much is the per capita cost of the infrastructure that provides the Australian living standard? And how much the cost of educating a population to make it function? There has been a huge debt accumulation in recent years, incurred by the cost of coping with building the infrastructure for a rapidly growing population. This will have an adverse effect on living standards and quality of life. Surely the best population policy for a nation is the one that delivers the greatest benefit to its citizens?

nice try sanchos[no the queen dont direct the armed forces]..even though i had to swear an oath of loyalty to defend here and her succesors

but her royal highness is one of the wealthiest woman in the world..[able to buy shares we commoners cant.[aBLE TO BUY one third of THE BANK of england..WITH A TAX STICK]..able to do as she pleases

but im more focused curreently..on other finatial issues..[like the bail out guarentees to under pin the banking system..[unspoken is govts..[including the krudd govt,issued bonds to underpin the govt guarentee..[it is these bonds that made sure the pathetic bank audit's passed muster..[or qld govt privatising yet more public assets[or docs being privatised]

but the malthusian/teutonic/bolchovics/eugenisysts..would rather we dont talk about their finatial treasons..[so we get the destractions such as this debate..[or green/men in black/suits saying business needs surity of a tradable carbon credit]...because the poles are melting [or the sky is falling/failing or some other such rot

its only till they get the bugs refined out of their new swine.bird/human flue mutant..[that should have offed one third of us by now]..but somehow is more mild..than the usual flue...lol...looks like they killed the 20 scientists that created it too soon

that dont prevent the media beating up the bird flew media distraction..while the teutonic zionista does their thing...god knows the hos-pit-als are doing their darndest with the current drugs..passing away as many as they can with the midnight injection that results in the heading ..passed away peacfully in their sleep

Fractelle, modest home, economical car...? You greedy, selfish, resource sucking, consuming, urban sprawling, overpopulating human, you! Are others entitled to your life, or only other hypocrits? Modest by whose standards? You are in the top wealth category on this planet if you have these. Perhaps you should give it all to a Somalian family and do more by car pooling in Protagoras '95 Volvo dickiemobile, which apparently doesn't run on the fossil fuel she so loathes. And while we're at it RawWally, how did you access the internet from the jungle you live in?

Overpopulation "denialists", climate "denialists" - hmmm, do I detect a pattern of language emerging here? It is these people who are in denial of their own blind hypocrisy. Remember it's a sin to be alive, but only Others are guilty! And all this from an article by a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who should be writing for obscure teenager UFO spotting magazines.

The totalitarians want to control the thermostat, the party numbers, and probably very soon, the TV remote control, as well. Be afraid - there was a time when nutters were on the fringe. Now they're on the fridge.

Fair go Fungo ol' chum! Everyone knows daggett was abducted by aliens, hence his extended absence from this thread. The aliens will return him soon after first examining the contents of his mind.

As for RawWally/RawMustardGas: he's an “outdoors man”, who doesn't “give a rats for...Personal Computers...and all that useless crap”. As he also said: “I'm and outdoors man, I hunt, fish, put up breading boxes, walk the bush, boat down the rivers, lakes, try to keep things in balance, enjoy nature and life for all it's worth.” He also apparently cuts down trees, skips and jumps, and goes to the lavatory...his posts must have got here by telepathy.

Note fungochumley's incisive treatment of the nutters' base hypocrisy here. That's why I stated earlier: "Many historians have identified the fundamental hypocrisies and other inconsistencies in past fascism, but such study hasn't prevented these people's repetitions thereof."

That's just one further fascist characteristic to match with the neo-Malthusians. Italian fascists advertised their “ancient mission” and destiny as a breed of natural, spontaneous types, but then they idolized every kind of technological elitism, including Futurist art. Nazi fascists contrived their cult of the outdoors and parallel pagan mythologies, forest fetishes, etc., but in practice caused the most intensive urbanization in German history, while sponsoring many forms of technological innovation (without, of course, any equitable, open or even peaceful purposes for their application).

At contemporary Australia's gutter level these anti-immigration nutters have their comrades among those vilifying and even assaulting Indian students and others, especially in Melbourne.

But there's an even stranger, more pathetic anomaly from the current Australian descent into Malthusian fantasies. Whereas earlier fascists had enough energy for a frenzied burst against the rest of the world while self-destructing, this mob here seems almost entirely devoted to just the suicidal part of such sentiment.

Other countries only need to look on in bewilderment.

[btw Fractelle: don't try to equate Linux users with your twisted views - I run three different Linux distros and I oppose your cult unconditionally]

Pericles,

If you want a plan of action, you might consider what you do when your toddler floods the bathroom. You first turn off the tap, then get out your mop and try to get the water up before it ruins your hall carpet and finds a way to leak down to the ceiling of the room below. While you are doing this, you think about how to prevent the problem from recurring. No one just turns the tap off and walks away, but there is no point in doing anything else if you are not willing to turn off the tap.

Here, turning off the tap means cutting immigration back to a responsible level that won't blow out a population that is already running short of water. You also stop bribing people to have babies. Fractelle has already explained the mopping part very well, basically, reduce, reuse, and recycle. I would add that we need some government action as well to, among other things, put some restraints on advertising, tax the most damaging forms of consumption to prevent the consumers from externalising the environmental and social costs, and impose some minimum efficiency and durability standards (to eliminate planned obsolescence).

Mil-ob,

If mass migration had all of the economic benefits you claim, then this should be obvious in the statistics. Go to the CIA World Fact Book (on the Web) and look at the statistics for the different countries. You will find no link between population size, growth rate, or density and GNP per capita for the developed countries. You will find such a link for population growth rate among the Third World countries, but it is negative. The ones that are growing fastest are the poorest. You might compare Australia's prosperity and public services with those of Denmark, which has hardly any population growth. Another counterexample is the US, which has had massive population growth due to immigration over the past 40 years. This has been good news for the rich, but the real incomes of most people have stagnated. See

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/03/09/the-best-inequality-graph/

Divergence: You and your comrades have very serious problems of cognition and analysis. It's so appalling it should prompt pointed inquiries into just what has happened throughout our education system. That's quite aside from my yet more serious and more immediate concerns about the fascistic implications of the neo-Malthusian stupor that has infiltrated mainstream politics nowadays.

What other superficial inferences could you draw from such sweeping economic trends? Predominance of certain skin colors? Percentages of certain religious affiliations? Language groups? Trends in consumption of certain food groups? Lack or frequency of viagra consumption? Preferences in viewing of TV soap operas? Or how about some real causal significance in, say, conspicuous statistical differences on children's enjoyment of Pokemon toys?

You should be embarrassed at having revealed such sloppy thinking. I haven't seen that kind of way-out bow-drawing since the efforts of OLO Malthusian stalwart daggett, who is still recovering in the bilges of the Vogons' intergalactic cruiser “Nexus 9”, currently moored off Saturn.

The following has been sent to the moderator concerning Mil-observer. If anyone agrees with me then please do likewise.

I think the time has come for this person to be excluded from the OLO Forum for a while. His bile has become too much for reasonable people to have to put up with. It seems that anyone with a contrary opinion is abused with language which in no way can be described as temperate.

I hope you give this missive very much consideration.

David

"Modern civilization is confronted by an unprecedented
slow but potentially dire crisis. Unfortunately, those
most responsible are sheltered by their wealth from
experiencing the early consequences and are disinclined
to respond effectively to the mounting threat.
Instead, as humans have always done, they hide
behind socially constructed myths that entrench the
status quo. The mainstream assumes we can resolve
the sustainability conundrum through improved technology,
increased factor productivity (material efficiency)
and market forces alone. Politicians and
ordinary citizens fear that policies that would effectively
mitigate ecological degradation would slow
economic growth. However, if the best science is
correct, this argument is irrelevant – the consequences
of climate change and ecosystems collapse themselves
will not only slow growth, but also could well
destroy the economy. As noted, society seems ‘in
flight from thinking’."

-- William Rees, 2009

Divergence, I am eternally grateful for your quite incredibly patronizing advice.

But quite apart from its tone, it encapsulates so very neatly a common disability, which is to see the issues involved as anything more complex than mops and buckets.

I note with some glee that you employ, shamelessly and without irony, the phrase "we need some government action as well".

Well of course you do. Nanny will look after, never you fear.

And what would you have Nanny do for you in this instance?

1. Stop those nasty foreigners from coming here... "[cut] immigration back to a responsible level", as you put it.

2. Eliminate family allowances... "stop bribing people to have babies". I presume you are also against parental leave? That will make you even more unpopular - and not with rich people, of course, who couldn't give a toss.

3. Introduce more government censorship... "put some restraints on advertising". Hmmm. Is it just me, or does this sound like a police state in the making?

4. Tax things that are inconsistent with growing strong, Aryan bodies... "tax the most damaging forms of consumption to prevent the consumers from externalising the environmental and social costs". Oh, sorry, was that a little over the top? I meant inconsistent with healthy, wholesome outcomes.

5. Take centralized control of the means of production... "impose some minimum efficiency and durability standards (to eliminate planned obsolescence)."

Your world sounds such an exciting place to live, Divergence.

I can't wait for you to become our dear leader, and in the footsteps of that other Great Leader, "help us build our country, our motherland, to be ever more prosperous, following the leadership of the great Party."

http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com/

This can't be true from Tim the writer of this article surely. But it is. Check out his blog.

"Earth's human population is over 10 times what is optimal"

"Governments worldwide should offer males and females generous compensation for getting sterilized"

"If fines were issued and privileges were revoked for reproducing, reproduction would decline."

"Broadcasters funded by taxation (eg: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, British Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) should be shut down if they continue to exclude and censor the overpopulation reality"

Uber Alles Australia anyone?

Contrary to what some say, these Unpeople are Ungreen and unelectable. But of course they don't believe in democracy, markets (except veggie markets on Sundays), or even providing information such as - just how bloody small do you want Australia's and the world's population to be?

"Incredibly patronizing", ha ha, good one Pericles.

Cheryl comments that the following cannot be true:

"Earth's human population is over 10 times what is optimal"

Please show us why this cannot be true, including an analysis of sustainable carrying capacity, and thanks.

Rick, you're the one proposing to cull the population. Please show why Sustainable People should not be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.

Pretty typical, Cheryl, dodging the questions that you can’t answer. A simple “I don’t know” would have sufficed.

And gosh, Cheryl, saying that I am proposing to “cull the population” sounds a lot like histrionic and shrill overpopulation denial to me. I challenge you to find any post, or anywhere in the blogosphere, that I have specifically and personally proposed to “cull the population.” Will you rise to the challenge and admit that you were wrong, or will you in typical form dodge this challenge, and in so doing, demonstrate that you really are just a frothing extremist? Your choice, as always.

And please show me why the growthists, who are leading the destruction of the ecology of this planet, should not be charged as terrorists, individually and also by industry (city “planners,” the real estate industry, the land “development” agencies, and so on). Our children, and generations beyond that, will see them as the environmental terrorists that many of them truly are, while they lament the horrendous loss of other species that is happening right now.

By the way, what is “Sustainable People,” and where are they located?

Cheryl seems to be doing a lot of ranting and babbling about conspiracies to "cull" people, but she also appears to be about the only correspondent here to have suggested such a thing.

I think we should "cull" the strawmen from the population debate.