The population sustaining rate is 2.1 children per woman. So if everyone has one child, the population won't grow, it'll die off (barring other factors such as immigration).

The majority of the extra 3 million in the next few decades will come from Africa and the Middle East- perhaps the author should send his article to some English news sites over there.

The only proven effective population growth limiter is a high standard of living. This has been proven by birth rates in every country in the developed world. Not even religion can counter this effect as seen in the population of Italy, the most Catholic country on the planet, which also has the lowest birth rate on the planet.

Trav apparently is not aware of the concept of demographic momentum, or of population overshoot.

Keep up the great articles, Tim. Those who refuse to open their eyes to what we're doing to this planet, and so to ourselves, will undoubtedly raise all the typical straw man arguments, and resort to personal attacks and so on. But you are the one who is cautioning us that; so we do not leave our children with a polluted, crowded, resource-depleted, strife-ridden planet; we need to act now. As such, yours is the sane and civilized voice in an ideological wilderness.

Thanks!

I would be interested in the views of the author and others on the situation in China where there appears to be a tide of excess males (to females) on the horizon. This is a cultural outcome of the political imposition of a single child policy, the social consequences of which are not likely to be pretty.

Maybe this article should be sent to the Vatican instead? :-) Whoops - no, the RC exhortations against use of condoms in African & Asian AIDS riddled countries is definately a population reduction strategy ....

Problem with 1 child families from a parental POV is having all ones eggs in the same flimsy basket. Children die - more often than not at an age where much of the rearing is done and mothers fertility exhausted by simple fact of age. I come from a 3 child family - my youngest brother was killed in an accident aged 19. Same accident claimed life of a 21 year old cousin who was one of 2 siblings. No chance of either mother producing another child. Couple, she - late forties, He - mid fifties who lived in my rural area in late 90s, the only child of that relationship (Dad had another from earlier marriage) died from anaesthetic complications during minor surgery. He was 20. Her entire genetic and parenting investment lost in one devastating unpredictable event.

I won't get into the argument about the 'only child - spoilt brat' theory except to say that there are too many over indulged, under disciplined, poorly trained children in todays society regardless of family size. In a retail environment you experience it daily - badly behaved brats and ineffective parents. On the bright side when you do encounter the opposite it is a real pleasure ..... sigh.

Maybe the right approach would be to encourage no more than two children. Full baby bonuses, parenting payments, benefits etc for the first two offspring, half allowance for the third and maybe fourth but nothing extra thereafter?

the bilderburgers plan to kill off the planet are seemingly gaining ground in the multinational media[over population isnt a real propblem[the real problem is the planets masters needed labour to get us into the machine age,..now its frightend we may think too much]

the recent disaster in china reveals how limited one child policy is[one school falls down and the whole town becomes childless]..way to extinguish the races matey..its wholsale eugenics..planned from the day they didnt build the school to survive a simple earth quake..[thats how far your eugenics dude's /masters will go]

there is no real problem of over population..[only the deception],we have unlimeted food[..that can be grown in deserts..[remember that]..or if worse comes to worse hydroponiclly in high-rise buildings..[the only limitation is its grown under lights not the sun]

so we hear you eugenics dude scream we got no energy[bull]..we got unlimeted FREE energy iof only you nutters would seek solutions not fixate on your delusional fears..[google you tube for magnetic moters[making free power]..or google the joe-fuel cell,or salt water that burns..[or any othe other of the thousands of FREEenergy solutions

with free energy we can build buildings that grow food/that unite people instead of murdering them..[with afluence comes breeding/control..[we affluent west have been declining our population for a long time..[so much so that we need inport breeders/workers..this occure NATURALLY..with wealth

we pay kids to breed..lol...thats how bad the over population problem REALLY is...lol..tell me you eugenics dudets..who will nurse you when you get old?..or should we just give you..[YOU]the injection ..put YOU down like a dog...your so full of fear maties..[your unable to think]...

those elites who rule us now..see only the problems/problems based on fear..they think we need one pandemic to off us all..or at least those of you they see as useless eaters..[its stupid idiots who blog their delusions that are our greatest danger..[not over population

I'll always agree with Tim Murray's views on population, but I don't think a one-child policy a la China or any other totalitarian country is advisable.

Much better to stop immigration altogether, and get rid of all non-citizens other than those working here temporarily.

Removal of baby bonuses and all financial help, along with taxpayer help for first home buyers would also be a good accompaniment to stopping immigration to see how things go before trying anything as drastic as a one-child policy.

Sure there is nothing really wrong with having one child in a family. Happens all the time. It is a matter for the family. No government should intervene. Whether a family that has more than one child should be made to feel guilty over vague charges that they are somehow ruining the lives of people in developing countries is another matter.
The present troubles of developing countries are most emphatically not the result of people having too many children in the developed world. If the author wants to allege this then he should draw a clear link.
I strongly agree with the suggestion that economic growth solves a lot of problems, despite attempts by the author to dismiss that suggestion. More economic growth in developing countries would solve a lot more problems than any attempt to limit population in Australia.
Economic growth is putting a strain on resources? What strain, where? What resources? Oil? Iron ore? For every scare story that can be presented about strain on resources there are plenty of counter arguments..

Tim writes

'Surely extinction is too high a price to pay for parental self-indulgence'

I would suggest that couples who choose not to have children are far more self indulgent than those who care for and bring up children. Why on earth are we trying to save the whale, the near extinct tadpoles and then claim we are overpopulated. To many people blinded by Green propaganda where humans are the enemy of the planet. This article is absolute crap (to put it kindly).

Runner says "Why on earth are we trying to save the whale, the near extinct tadpoles and then claim we are overpopulated."

Um, isn't one of the points exactly that the current Sixth Great Extinction of species is directly due to human population pressure? I fail to see your logic here, so please enlighten me. Thanks.

[Trav apparently is not aware of the concept of demographic momentum, or of population overshoot.]

OK so someone fill me in on the concepts and their relevance to the topi

Thanks to all the doomists who contribute to these sites, there seems to be a coming together of views of anti-immigration racists, old-fashioned eugenicists, anti-(other people's)-population, infanticide of other people's children, cave-and-kelp environmentalists, and I suspect, euthanasia advocates.

I'm personally comfortable with:
* reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to ecologically sustainable levels;
* with sustainable living, along with sustainable development and use of resources;
* with increased immigration, particularly from the 'Third World', we need this for increased inter-marriage which is so obviously necessary to invigorate our Anglo population;
* with the decriminalisation of suicide and the current penalties for murder (i.e. euthanasia and infanticide);
* and for far greater funding of women's education around the world, since lower fertility eventually correlates with women's educational levels.

There was a time when Africa made up half the world's population, and I hope that, with present levels of fertility, they will soon re-acquire that population share. So I am also quite comfortable with:

* the current rate of growth in the African population, provided it is paired with massive infrastructural, educational and economic development, and
* increased migration from Asia and Africa to Europe, the US and Australia, in order to rejuvenate our populations, and move us away from tired old racist and anti-modernist policies which seek either to take us back to Menzies' fifties, or further back to a Medieval Golden Age - or even further back to a tribal past.

Hopefully, this will set a few cats of reality amongst the Utopian pigeons.

Joe

Leigh,

I think that you are generally right, although zero net immigration is probably better than no immigration. From ABS figures, 61% (235,000 people) of our current annual 1.8% population growth rate comes from immigration, while 39% (153,400) comes from natural increase, a considerable amount of which must be from recent migrants. Our fertility rate (1.8 births per woman) is currently well below replacement level (2.1) and has been since 1976, so the natural increase is due to momentum from past high fertility. A population that has been growing rapidly has a pyramid-shaped age distribution, with the births in the large young adult generation and most of the deaths in the relatively tiny elderly generation. Unless there is a drastic increase in fertility, natural increase is temporary, and will end and then go negative when the baby boomers start to die in significant numbers. Fertility is likely to go even lower, however, with more and more people forced into "rack 'em, pack 'em, and stack 'em" housing styles. Nevertheless, the politicians could keep our population growing rapidly with immigration, even with no births at all.

Even so, there is no longer any reason why we should be forced to subsidise births via the baby bonus and the like. There is pretty good evidence from our government's own Measures of Australia's Progress reports (on Web) that our environment is being badly degraded to achieve population and economic growth. Furthermore, we have outgrown our water supplies everywhere except Tasmania and the tropical North. That is why the Murray Darling basin is in trouble, with more than 80% of the water allocated to human purposes as opposed to 15% in the 1920s, why we have permanent water restrictions in our cities with people encouraged to spy on their neighbours, and why the politicians are building expensive and energy hungry desalination plants instead of dams. In SE Queensland, according to a report in the Australian last week, water bills will go up by 20% next year and another 50% in the following two years, even though per capita consumption has been cut in half.

There's quite a few issues I have with this piece - I do agree that overpopulation is a very serious issue and needs to be tackled, but I never agree with exaggerations, distortions or oversimplifications.

Murray states that 3 billion is far too many people for the world.

I'd like to see some backing. Firstly, it all depends on standard of living, as well as wastefulness. Even if I did accept 3 billion as being excessive, does he mean 3 billion people living more circumscribed lives, or people wasting food and resources at an alarming rate?

He doesn't say. He just states it. Frankly, I think if we could get the population to stabilise at say, 5 billion, we'd probably be able to work things out. Maybe even higher, I dunno. What I'm worried about is population increases.

So I disagree with this point. Plus, we have no right to deny other people the chance to develop their economies - it's a necessity, one that needs to be implemented alongside population policies.

Also - this is a side point and it's not entirely relevant, but it deserves clarification. Murray states: "And fully 83 per cent desire to have both a son and a daughter, which together coincidentally translate into “good” in Chinese characters"

The characters are 'nu' and 'zi'. I'd put them here, but some won't have the character sets. Anyhow, compress them into a single character and you get 'hao.'

But, strictly speaking, Murray indicates as though nu means girl and zi means boy. That's not true.
Nu means female and zi means male. You need to add an extra character to indicate a boy or a girl.
The 'hao' character means good - it's male and female complementing each other. Whilst from one view it still ties into Murray's point, it's not literally any indication that having a boy and a girl is good - it's that male and female concepts complement each other - something that I think most cultures agree on.

We don’t need a one-child policy in Australia or other developed countries.

We’ve definitely got to gear our population growth towards no growth, if not a steady rate of negative growth, but we don’t need to implement a draconian policy to do this.

By reducing immigration to at least net zero, we’ll cut out nearly two thirds of our population growth in Australia, just that easily.

Then if we reverse policies like the despicable baby bonus and tax incentives, the fertility rate will very quickly drop considerably.

The population would still continue to grow a bit, as there is such a big discrepancy between the personal fertility rate and the national fertility rate (due to there being a large cohort of people in the reproducing years, due to a high immigration rate that is strongly geared towards younger people), but I reckon we can cop this bit of extra growth if we can be confident that it will relatively quickly decline and then move into the reduction phase.

This is in theory easy in Oz, US, UK, Canada, etc….and a whole lot more politically tenable than a one-child policy.

If the overall fertility rate is where we want it to be – taking our society towards a balance between people and environment / resource base, then we should be free to choose how many kids we have. It is the average that matters.

Of course we would still be stuck with the overwhelming third-world pop growth problem.

Loudmouth,

Your first paragraph stopped me dead from reading any more of your post. Your name-calling concerning people who are against immigration is just too stupid for words.

Divergence,

Yes. I’ll go along with zero net immigration, which is probably more practical. At the very least, we should not increase our population further. However, I would like to see a reduction ideally.

For all his sneering and overblown rhetoric the author presents not one scrap of evidence that the “demographic transition” theory is wrong. Perhaps this is because the balance of evidence overwhelmingly supports it. Fertility rates are falling in developing countries and have fallen below replacement rates in developed ones. We are moving from a world with high death rates and high birth rates, to one with low birth and death rates. Most demographers expect the world’s population to level off this century.

The author says “there is no proven correlation between economic standing and fertility” This is wrong. The correlation between prosperity and fertility is strong and negative in low-to-middle income countries, whether comparing different countries at a single point in time or trends over time in particular countries. Beyond a certain level of prosperity, the relationship flattens out, with fertility stabilising at low levels at per capita GDP levels of about US$15,000. This is exactly what demographic transition theory predicts. We can argue about the nature and direction of the cause of that correlation, but to deny the correlation itself is simply not tenable.

See this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate.jpg

Developing countries will not be “ruined” by economic growth. Their people have no less right to pursue a decent standard of living than we do. One of the least attractive features of the anti growth lobby is their effort to claim as a virtue their desire to keep poor people poor.

I thought the evidence points to fertility being linked to *Womens* wealth in society, not overall wealth. Where women cannot live outside the "traditional" family unit as child rearers they are completely dependent on children to give them a stable income (via the father as household ruler).
This implies that without equality for women, extra wealth will not necessarily do the trick. How much is economic and how much culture?
We definitely need to stabilise population, but to do that I believe we need a sustainable culture and economy. Won't happen in this climate of extremists and profiteers I'm afraid.

What a steaming pile of rubbish.

All the population growth is occurring in the poorest of the poor countries, and where there is wealth population is stable or decreasing. Increasing their wealth is certain to bring stability and population control.

As to the benefit to the kids, they are slight, and hardly compensate for the lack of social skills.

China's population under the one child policy has increased by nearly 50%, so someone must have slipped the leash. Along with all the other issues it has not been a great success.

As Yabby pointed out, it is not wealth per se, but the availability of contraception that allows populations to stabilize. I would suggest that affluent nations might be observed to be "breeding like rabbits" were contraception unavailable.

The truth is that without contraception, we breed like humans.

Shadow Minister says "China's population under the one child policy has increased by nearly 50%, so someone must have slipped the leash. Along with all the other issues it has not been a great success."

Actually, given an understanding of demographic momentum, that outcome was predicted. China's population also did NOT increase by an additional 300 million or more (I think I got that number right, but it was from memory) as a result of this policy. It is a clear example that, even with some pretty drastic population control measures, our populations will continue to increase significantly, and the predictions from the demographers are that that will only finally level off after about 20 to 30 years.

A valid comparison would be poverty striken China whose population as recently as 1950 was a mere 563, with any of the OECD countries whose native populations are decreasing.

As china becomes wealthier, its growth is slowing.

The one child policy is not as effective as wealth generation.

This news item gives some insight into the thinking of the Chinese government officials themselves

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23326985-12377,00.html

They essentially introduced the one-child policy when they did because they felt that they had no choice and no time to wait for the demographic transition. They were concerned about stalled development, not to mention famine and the risk of collapse. Their very big young adult generation (partly due to Mao's policy of encouraging large families) guaranteed massive population growth from demographic momentum, even with a low fertility rate. It is true that once development took off, fertility would have started to fall by itself. The truth undoubtedly lies between the Chinese government's claim that the one-child policy averted 300-400 million births and Shadow Minister's claim that it made no difference at all. It is unlikely, however, that the Chinese government would have maintained a policy that must have been difficult and expensive to enforce and has had some nasty side effects if there were no need for it.

I have worked with a lot of Chinese scientists and engineers over the years. Some were migrants, while others were only here temporarily. None of them were at all shy about criticising their government, usually about tolerating corruption from low and middle level officials, although they were proud of its achievements. I can't recall any of them criticising the one-child policy. Some actually told me that they believed it was necessary, although they are glad that it is now being relaxed somewhat.

Shadow Minister

Wealthy nations might have lower birth rates, but it is impractical where population growth is greatest. For example, what is the infrastructure cost per person for a living standard equivalent to Australia's? Add to this the cost of educating the population to an equivalent standard. Then you are in a position to estimate the cost of making the world wealthier.

How much would it cost to give Ethiopians an Australian living standard? Well over 50 trillion dollars is my guess. So providing contraception to these countries is a realistic means of improving living standards. High living standards would not be achievable in a time frame short enough to avoid a catastrophic population collapse.

The first thing that strikes me about the author's approach to all this, is his utter selfishness.

To get the full flavour, you need to follow the link from his blogger.com user profile...

http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com/

Here's how it goes:

"We all agree that..."

Well actually Tim, we don't. Not all of us. Not me, anyway.

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

Says who? This is a number simply plucked out of the air.

Or somewhere fundamentally darker and less hygienic.

"The more natural resources per capita, the higher our quality of life."

He means, of course, the higher his quality of life. Selfish bastard.

"Reducing population by modifying natal and immigration policies for all countries starting with our own is necessary for the brightest future."

Tim, if every country stopped immigration as you suggest, how will that reduce the world's population? It won't, will it? It simply means that there will be fewer of them nasty furriners to bother you.

Admit it. You just don't like immigrants, do you.

"A major energy breakthrough such as thorium reactor technology or a massive oil discovery is not beneficial to humanity because it will only increase human numbers and human activity which will destroy quality of life and other species"

This is a winner. If we continue to find new energy sources, the anti-growth brigade won't be able to use energy depletion as an reason to stop immigration any more.

So stop innovating, everyone. It only encourages people to live and enjoy life. Can't have that.

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

Yep. And if they don't volunteer, Tim will come round and personally do the operation himelf, whether you like it or not.

Or more likely, one of his stormtroopers.

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

If that fails, line 'em up and shoot them.

I can't help but think that here is one very sad human being, who finds life on earth unbearable, and wants everyone else to feel the same way.

Pericles writes "Tim, if every country stopped immigration as you suggest, how will that reduce the world's population? It won't, will it? It simply means that there will be fewer of them nasty furriners to bother you.

Admit it. You just don't like immigrants, do you."

Ah, the racist card again. Admit it. You do not have any better arguments, and have not read my "Accusations of Racism Don't Change the Facts" at http://sustainablesalmonarm.ning.com/profiles/blogs/accusations-of-racism-dont

I sure wish that you would take the time to read what is at Tim's blog, as he has already dealt with your question. The word count restrictions for articles here prevent him from giving much detail about anything, so look around.

Halting immigration has a two-fold benefit. First, it stops the immediate expansion of consumption of most immigrants (and that consumption is multiplied by a factor of four or more for most immigrants). And second, it closes the safety valve that has let other countries avoid dealing with their own overpopulaton problems. It's time for those other countries finally deal with those problems, and we can target our aid for them to education of women, and to provision of contraception -- two methods proven to reduce the fertility rate.

Population or over consumption?

My household of nine uses less water and electricity than than that of my daughter's teacher (2 person household) who pontificated that families shouldn't have more than one sibling.

Didn't she look like the intolerant fool she was when she brought in her bills and compared them with ours!

This is the challenge for all the doom sayers. Are we living sustainably, and how can we improve this situation?

My children grow the best fresh fruit and veg on our quarter acre as they compost everything, use the rainwater to water etc etc. Not that hard, and as for fashion clothes etc, they just by-pass all of that.

Better to educate that eradicate?

Reality Check,

It is good that you are trying to live sustainably, but a simple calculation (involving the exp key on your calculator) can show you that the benefits of any reduction in consumption will eventually be wiped out if the population continues to grow. I once calculated the effect if the entire population of the US were to disappear, with its resources to be shared equally among the rest of the world. It would take about 20 years at the current global population growth rate to put everyone right back in the poverty where they started. Pericles understands this, but thinks that we ought to be glad to live in some wretched, crowded human factory farm to allow more hypothetical people to live. What is surprising is that he doesn't even expect Brownie points in heaven for it.

Reality Check, can you please do an analysis of the amount of fuel your family uses, not just for personal transportation, but also for manufacturing and transporting all the goods your family uses. Unless you are producing all your own food as well, that food must be produced somewhere and transported to where you can purchase it, and all the goods (clothing, furniture, and so on) used by your family must be produced somewhere and transported to where you can purchase it as well. In other words, please don't cherry-pick one item and use it as some sort of demonstration of an ascetic lifestyle. Let's see the entire picture. As well, if you have done your ecological footprint calculation, it would be interesting to see the number. How many people living as you do can this planet support?

And, finally, if the trends continue, then the teacher you mentioned will likely lead to only one or two additional people in the next generation. Your family, on the other hand, will lead to nearly 50 (I am assuming 7 children in your family continuing the trend of having 7 child families). How is that sustainable?

POLITICIANS NEED IMMIGRATION

There seems to be a lot of information in the posts here that points to immigration being the source of the overpopulation in Australia and other developed countries around the world not the Australian women ;who have a very low birthrate.
It has always been the politicians that have allowed the huge influx of immigrants usually against the majority wishes of the Australian people at any given time. That is because when the economy stalls the politicians are put in the hot seat, because when people aren’t prospering they usually blame it on the government of the day. The politicians know that without new consumers needing more homes and white goods and groceries etc that the economy will experience big slumps and they need constant new people to bouy the economy . Immigration is what keeps them in their jobs. Of course they don’t say this as they like to claim that it is all because of their own clever management.
While this is the situation I can’t see that they will ever put the brakes on immigration. Therefore dreams of a sustainable population will remain forever unrealized.

There is little we can do about the undeveloped world’s population, although to read what the author of this article and other greenies say you would think it is somehow our fault. Until the leaders of some of these countries stand up in the United Nations and ask for help to provide contraception and education for their women then it is THEY who are responsible. We can’t just barge into their countries and make them implement these things because the reality is they don’t want to.

What we can do is stop making things worse, which is apparently what most international aid does. If we wish to provide aid, and if those countries wish to receive it, then we can tie it to demonstrated effectiveness in educating women, and in providing contraception. If those countries receiving aid don't like that, then they don't have to accept the aid.

Have a close listen to this voice, Rick S.

>>...we can tie it to demonstrated effectiveness in educating women, and in providing contraception. If those countries receiving aid don't like that, then they don't have to accept the aid.<<

"Here," says Rick S "I have some food for you starving people. But first you must make a firm commiment not to have children. Which is to be? Would you prefer to raise a family, or eat a meal tonight? Your choice. No pressure."

Why do you feel the need to control the lives of others so much?

Is it because you live so well, in a prosperous and free country, that you feel obliged to tell everyone else how they should conduct their lives?

Or does the answer lie far deeper in your psyche?

Hey, we give aid voluntarily right now, and the studies are showing that it would be more humane to completely halt all of the aid that is only making things worse. I'm gathering then that you support the status quo, and wish to continue making things worse for other countries. What a nice global citizen you must be.

What studies, Rick S?

>>we give aid voluntarily right now, and the studies are showing that it would be more humane to completely halt all of the aid that is only making things worse<<

It is more humane to watch people die of starvation and untreated illness? What kind of arrogant neo-colonial nanny-knows-best rubbish is that?

Do try to find some justification for the "it would be more humane to completely halt aid" statement. I can't wait to be impressed by its warm, caring and unselfish sentiments.

Nope, I'm not falling for it.

I've already done the work, and have read the studies. As I said earlier, nothing I say is going to change your mind. It's time for you to actually do a little work, find out the real story behind international aid (yes, it makes things worse), and open your eyes, and your mind. Our aid needs to be tied to education, especially of women, and making contraception readily available. That is the only way to minimize the suffering that you seem so willing to continue.

Do you actually know how to use a search engine?

Don't be silly Rick S, of course I do.

>>Do you actually know how to use a search engine?<<

A damn sight better than you, it would appear.

Here's the very first thing I found, after nearly twentyfive seconds of searching

http://www.developmentgateway.com.au/jahia/jsp/link.jsp?idLink=1401

It is the OECD Development Assistance Committee review of Australia's aid program.

In all its 117 pages, it has nothing but positive statements to make about the aid given, and how that aid makes a positive contribution to the society in question.

After another ten seconds or so, I found this statement from the Government about Australia's aid programs:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/international_aid.html

Again, not a single mention, anywhere, of the harm caused by the programs.

Seven seconds later, I find this little item from ActNow, a youth organization dedicated to all sorts of worthy causes.

http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Youth_led_movements_push_for_better_foreign_aid.aspx

If anyone is going to have their fingers on the pulse, it's the young.

Evidence that the recipients would be better off without aid? Nil.

OK, there's three.

Where are all yours?

Time to come clean, Rick S. Show us that you are not simply avoiding the question by deviousness, prevarication and deception.

As a reminder, because you may have forgotten, here is the barefaced lie you posted here:

"What we can do is stop making things worse, which is apparently what most international aid does... the studies are showing that it would be more humane to completely halt all of the aid that is only making things worse"

Don't let me down, will you?

Real links, real studies.

You do know how to use a search engine, don't you?

Pericles writes " Show us that you are not simply avoiding the question by deviousness, prevarication and deception."

Ah, but you set the example here. You have failed to answer multiple questions about how growth can continue, where Plan B is in the event that any of the "peak" predictions are valid, about resources, and about a variety of other things. So, I do have the studies, but I'm waiting for you to answer the questions about how you promote misery in the future by supporting growthism, unfettered foreign aid, and continued overpopulation denial. I've been quite patient, and I suppose that will have to continue....

Look, Rick S, it's quite understandable that you are embarrassed at your inability to follow through on your statements, we all understand that it was just something you thought up on the spur of the moment and thought would make you look good.

But it is an even worse look to imagine stuff on behalf of other people.

>>You have failed to answer multiple questions about how growth can continue, where Plan B is in the event that any of the "peak" predictions are valid, about resources, and about a variety of other things.<<

If you look really, really carefully, Rick S, you will find that the only question you have asked - or anybody has asked, for that matter - on this thread is "Do you actually know how to use a search engine?"

So I don't know where these voices in your head come from, but they seem to be interfering with your personal reality.

As it happens, I don't make any pretence at being able to tell the future, so I cannot predict at what point civilization might collapse under pressure of over-consumption, nor do I attempt to envisage the potential fallout when, or if, this happens.

Unlike those who have a crystal-clear view of it all, and believe that somehow turning the lights off for an hour every year, or taking cold showers, will somehow make it all better.

I won't embarrass you further by asking you to back up your fantasies with those "reports", so you're off the hook.

Pericles, if you bother to look carefully, you will see that you have left many questions unanswered, but I can understand why you wish to do so. Otherwise, you might have to deal with the fact that what your growthist overpopulation denying cult of wannabe social engineers is destroying this planet, wants people to crowd together like termites while actively destroying other species, and cares nothing about future generations. You certainly can't be accused of being racist, in that you seem to wish harm to all people equally, but you can be accused of being misanthropic.

In any case, I'm glad that you're done with this. Two down, a few more to go.

I get it, Rick S

>>In any case, I'm glad that you're done with this. Two down, a few more to go.<<

The idea is to talk meaningless rubbish, make statements that can't be backed up, and generally behave like a gormless boor until people get fed up and walk away.

Good plan.

Works well.

Pericles says "The idea is to talk meaningless rubbish, make statements that can't be backed up, and generally behave like a gormless boor until people get fed up and walk away.

Good plan.

Works well."

Yes, that describes the shrill overpopulation deniers exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for the great summary, and for being so introspective!