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.