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?