The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Anti-populationists - the new imperialists > Comments

Anti-populationists - the new imperialists : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 1/6/2009

This is a story about the rise of anti-humanism and imperialism in the Australian environmental movement.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 24
  11. 25
  12. 26
  13. All
This was the most uncompelling argument I've seen within this forum. Honestly, it is easier to argue with a religious fundamentalist on the existence of God, than to deal with any of the red herrings, straw men, psuedo-facts and nonsensical diatribe espoused by Malcolm.

I'm no fan of the extremist environmentalist movement that would have us reduce to a population of 500 million and survive on a completely vegan lifestyle reminiscent of our ancestral cave-dwellers. But Malcolm has illogically and stupidly tied this mindset to the entire population debate.

Malcolm has stuck his fingers in his ears, plunged his ostrich head in the sand and is singing "la la la - population isn't an issue".

I enjoyed reading his Feb 09 article "We have nothing to fear but hype itself" and suggest that Malcolm has taken this to the extreme by choosing to ignore any sign of any problem anywhere in the world, particularly if it means having to take some personal responsibility for one's over-consuming western lifestyle.
Posted by Collin Mullane, Monday, 1 June 2009 5:37:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was rather taken with Leigh's argument as it popped Kanck (crank) and her Sustainable Population Australia bubble. Kanck did nothing in 12 years of parliament and she'll do nothing now.

The anti-pops deny human agency or humans the power to change the world. For them, we have no free will. We are ants in awe of the capitalist system, in awe of consumerism, of 'stuff'. There's no doubt that there are problems being drawn to material 'stuff' over maybe say an irrational commitment to culling one half of the worlds population.

But I'll go with the stuff. Let me give you a hint. You might think your vision of the future is etched in stone but to many of us, your fanaticism and Himmler-like attachment to bio-sociology, is a major turn off. You're out their swinging with the SS. King has burst your bubble, that's why your angry. It's a bugger that debate has a pro AND con isn't it?

I can hear the knock, knock, knock on my door now in the Year 2020. It's the suede denim police coming for my neice - hiding in the cellar - because she is pregnant with her SECOND child. As Charlton Heston said in Planet of the Apes, 'Damn you all to hell!'

PS. Have you guys thought what you'll do after the apocalypse? I'll tell you. You'll get rid of debate - and live with a specially selected harem of beautiful women (or men) and breed and breed. Hang on - that's my line...
Posted by Cheryl, Monday, 1 June 2009 6:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's have a few figures, just so we know what we are talking about: these are from http://math.berkeley.edu/~galen/popclk.html

2009: 6,750,731,000
2019: 7,434,924,000
2029: 8,010,863,000
2039: 8,443,868,000
2049: 8,707,137,000
2059: 8,783,627,000
2069: 8,668,402,000
2079: 8,369,008,000

So yes, assuming current trends continue, the population will eventually start to drop. But most of us here will be dead by the time that starts happening. I think it's wonderful that my grandkids will see global population turn down, but in the meantime I would like to ensure that I get a reasonable share of whatever resources are going. It's better to promote contraception now than to shoot or blow up eighteen-year-old invaders in 2028 as they're trying to forcibly redistribute the things that I have and they don't.

Most of the history of Europe from 100 AD to 1500 is the story of successive waves of invaders from the East, driven west by population pressures, inflicting terrible devastation on the lands that they pass through, knowing that if they stop they'll be crushed by the next wave coming along behind. Maybe that won't happen this time: maybe it will. Let's do all we can to try and prevent it.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 1 June 2009 8:04:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am always amazed at these populate or perish advocates who pick the extreme end of an idea (ie. one child policies, forced sterilisation etc) and tar the whole sustainable population movement with one sordid brush. I suppose it serves its purpose in stopping reasonable and balanced debate in one swoop.

Populate or perish advocates stick their heads in the sand and hope it will all go away or worse complete denial. Those nasty sustainability people wanting to manage the earth's natural resources better to ensure that there is more equity between the rich and poor, that human life is not reduced to the lowest levels of degradation when we are all fighting over the last few resources.

If I was to adopt the extremism of this author for the other side, I would argue those populate or perish lot are anti-humanist greedy capitalists who encourage growth to serve the purposes of those at the top of the food chain. Whose disdain for human life means that we let the diseases of poverty and overcrowding, poor hygiene and waste/water management take their natural course so the poorest perish and live the lowest quality of life imaginable.

But arguments like this serve no purpose while the obvious stares us in the face. Let's talk about sustainability in conjuction with a greater sharing of resources, advanced technologies and healthier less pesticide intensive food production. Rather than forced population programs lets talk with reason (without hysteria) about getting rid of government handouts that encourage large families like baby bonuses, maternity leave etc.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 1 June 2009 8:34:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a humanist who is also an environmentalist, I'm as usual rather bemused by Malcolm's latest diatribe. I'm certainly no fascist, but I do recognise that the sheer weight of human population has wreaked havoc on the natural environment, and seems to be doing so exponentially.

One doesn't have to subscribe to sociobiology or AGW theory to acknowledge that we as a species have had extremely detrimental effects on the environment that ultimately sustains us, at a rate that is exponentially proportional with population increase, combined with increasingly intensive resource and energy use.

It seems to me that these are unsustainable in the long term, and that it is therefore simply prudent to acknowledge that. I'm also painfully aware that any strategies that might ameliorate the potential calamities to come will be complex, unpalatable and unpopular - and probably therefore won't happen voluntarily.

Indeed, I think that the planet will impose it upon us - but it won't have anything to do with 'Gaia'. Rather, it's the inevitable outcome of an organism outpopulating its ecological niche - which in our case is the entire planet.

Unfortunately, the world has developed a global economy that has a logic of its own, and is certainly not rational. Even more unfortunately, under such circumstances it's more rational for people to eschew the global good for local gain, which is why we see such entrenched, powerful and quite ruthless attacks on sensible ideas like population, resource and energy sustainability.

Meanwhile, people breed like rabbits and find ever more ways to hate each other, not to mention increasingly destructive ways to express that hatred. That's what I call real misanthropy, as opposed to those of us who would rather that we all learn to live with each other, within our globally collective means.

I'm not optimistic.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 1 June 2009 9:29:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is hard to know where to begin in refuting Malcolm King's scurrilous comments but I shall deal with just two: whether we who see populatuion as an environmental issue are scientific or not, and what motivates us.

First, when Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population (now Sustainable Population Australia) was set up in 1988, we founding mothers and fathers were insistent that the organisation be scientifically based. Subsequently, we nominated five Patrons, four of whom were renowned scientists: Ian Lowe, Frank Fenner, Tim Flannery and Mary White. The fifth, Paul Collins, is a theologian with anough scientific understanding to be write credibly on the subject (God's Earth). In recent times, we are integrating the latest scientific findings on climate change and Peak Oil and it's hard to find anything in the literature which says population growth is NOT a problem.

Second, we are not motivated by selfishness but by deep compassion for humanity and concern for the Earth. The fact that the average family size in Ethiopia is seven children means the average family is stretched to provide sufficient food and pay for education for all its children, further pushing them into an endless cycle of poverty. Even Peter McDonald, renowned Australian demographer who is happy to see Australia's population rise, sees population growth as an impediment to development in the countries in our region such as PNG where the average number of children per woman is four. Maternal mortality in PNG has doubled in the past year largely because of inadequate reproductive services, including contraception. When women cannot get access to contraception, they die from having their babies too young or too soon after the last one or often because they have had too many and their bodies are plain worn out. It is not cultural imperialism that makes us want these women to have fewer children; it is care for the women themselves and for the children they will leave behind should they die in childbirth
Posted by popandperish, Monday, 1 June 2009 11:10:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 24
  11. 25
  12. 26
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy