Down with speciescentric arrogance!!

Equal rights for shower mould and windshield bugs!!

THis article suggests that anti-pops are all greenies, based on some 'mother earth' religion. But this is obviously not the case.

There are many rationalists also that hope for population management.

The developed world is committing genocide against itself, due to it's failure to produce children, especially children in the middle class/professional class.

The poor world is keeping itself in poverty because no government can produce three times more schools, hospitals and roads each generation. Let alone three times more land to grow food for their ever-growing populations.

In between we see countries like Thailand and China, who have booming economies... because they have managed their populations to improve quality of life. In China, they have done it the bad way. But Thailand, they have given women free contraceptive hormone implants that last for 3 years, giving women control of their fertility. Along with showing people the benefits of smaller families.

Throughout history, wars have been justified by religion, but really been about resources. In the most attractive and resource-rich parts of the world now (the western world) has dwindling populations. Meanwhile the resource-poor third world and Muslim worlds have booming populations.

It will only be a matter of time before the "population bomb" becomes a real bomb. The growth of radical Islam is a result of booming numbers of Muslims squeezed into increasingly impoverished countries.

War and invasion has always been a fight for resources. And I don't want my children to be killed in the up-coming demographic wars!

We need pro-family policies across the western world. NOT means-tested, because the middle class is the group most likely to fail in having enough kids. Middle class families can't afford large families like welfare moms. We also need a roll-back of father-hatred in divorce courts etc to protect kids. Feminist-inspired policies created professional male commitment-phobia http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0709a.html.

And we need to help the poor World out of poverty by supporting their population management, following Thailand's model. Reducing skyrocketing birthrates to allow them to develop.

PartTimeParent@POBox.com

Some interesting posts here. I thought the argument was heading towards a stalemate of he said/she said.

I'd like to know politically and from a public policy point of view how the anti-pops would reduce population that didn't take away personal liberty or freedom.

Can this be done in a democracy or should we move to an anarcho-syndicalist approach?

Can this be done through capitalism as Jonathon Porritt suggests or do we have to get rid of it and replace it with a kinder, nicer world?

What should we do with people who say sod you, we'll do what we like?

Wing Ah Ling, "[S]cience, by definition, doesn’t supply value judgements." True.

"[A]nti-pops...don’t regard human life as a positive value". Untrue.

"Anti-pops" (catchy, BTW) value humans as much as youd do , but don't believe that we have a greater right to overbreed and destabilise the ecology than any other animal.

You could make the standard conservative argument that humans are a supreme species, exempt from the natural laws of the universe because God made it so, but you seem to value yourself as a rationalist.

Why do you retreat into illogical religious reasoning when the evidence conflicts with your ideology?

Cheryl: "I'd like to know ... [to] reduce population that didn't take away personal liberty or freedom."

Nice to see you have caught on. As far as I can tell, the only ones who are proposing drastic measures to curb population are the growthists - as straw man arguments. Right now King is a major offender.

Here in Australia, it is relatively easy to make our population static or reduce - by reducing immigration. It requires no impingement on any personal liberty or freedom of Australian citizens.

As for the rest of the world, I don't care. Besides I personally don't feel like I have any right to tell them what to do. They would at best ignore anything I say, but more likely take offence. Consequently CJ's pessimistic outlook is probably right for most of the world. Some of them could not stabilise their population even if the wanted to, and some just don't want to.

Right now we fall into the latter camp. We could stabilise our population, painlessly. We choose not to. This seems insane to me. However, I am not as pessimistic as CJ. Given most voters are anti-pops, we could easily change direction.

The question is not whether population growth will end - obviously it will as the earth is finite. The questions are whether individuals will be happier with more people who have less of a finite pie - should things turn out well. If they are, then are they are prepared to risk the four horseman and the apocalypse outcome that will happen if we don't choose to stop growing at an exponential rate to the right point.

Personally, I would like to know what point they have chosen, and why they are confident we won't hit exponential overshoot before then, and how they propose to stop population growth when we hit it. I would also like help in understanding why they think living in a place where basics are rationed (as water is now in Australia) is better than choosing to do otherwise.

I'm still waiting for my flying car and a nutritious snack of Soylent Green.

C'mon, the misanthropic neo-Malthusian wingnuts have been threatening mass starvation for over 30 years.

Personally, I look forward to the day when a man can have the satisfaction of strapping a shotgun holster on his back, heading out into the wasteland of abandoned, flooded cities, and hunting down a few of natural selection's losers. We shall feast on the still-beating hearts of the vanquished, and rejoice in finally, truly, being a race of purified, brave, free men!