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).