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?