"Every single person, with the possible exception of desert Aborigines and other hunter/gatherers, departs this life leaving the Planet a bit poorer than when they arrived on it."

(:>( That's a tad depressing!

I don't believe it is the case. There are many many good frugal people who in themselves are not doing any damage to the planet. They may be having a negative impact, but that is due entirely to the fact that there are just far too many of us.

Crikey, what about the hundreds of millions of people who are living extremely frugally, to the point that are only just managing to survive, across much of Africa and Asia. They are doing damage purely because of their (our) sheer numbers. Of course, gross overconsumption in the developed world has got an awful lot to do with it as well.

However, the main tenet of this article is of course rock solid. The human population size and the fact that it is still growing rapidly is our overriding problem. Intertwined with climate change it certainly is, but much bigger than climate change it also is.

The whole climate change awareness and call for action seems to have actually diverted attention away from the more urgent population issue, IMHO.

The climate change issue and the population issue should by now have led to a global 'war' against unsustainability and brought about maximised efforts to secure a sustainable future. But it just hasn't done anything of the sort!

In fact, there seems to be next to no will in the G20 nor developed nations overall, nor in their peoples' level of concern, about us striving to achieve a sustainable future, despite the grossly unsustainable path that we are so obviously on.

Anyway, good on you John for putting up this article.

Good one John and absolutely right Ludwig. But while our politicians are in the pockets of the developers and miners and financiers, nothing will change and we will still be going down the road to oblivion at an accelerated rate for the foreseeable future.

David

"you must face the alternative ... we must drastically reduce the human population!"

Replace "human" with "Jewish" and this rhetoric seems frighteningly familiar.

This is a good article by John Reid addressing the major problem that threatens humans and life on this planet.

Too bad the United Nations who could work together to solve a lot of the issues driving wars and human misery on this earth can’t make an all out effort to provide contraception,drugs and medical care through womens clinics set up in areas within reasonable travelling reach of most women on the planet.

I doubt whether the planet itself will be destroyed, who knows, maybe it warms up and the water re-covers a lot of the earth in a cyclical cleansing and renewal cycle. The warming may even become intense enough after a while to reactivate old and new volcanoes to reform new land masses as it did millions of years ago. I doubt the planet needs us to survive.

Mass overpopulation will of course result in mass starvation and death through conflict over territory and territorial resources, that’s how nature culls species who overpopulate whether it be man or beast.

I realize that the above truths are too scary for the fundamentalist religions who prefer the mind deluding opium of religion. Quote-“religion is the opium of the people . “ Their inability to face hard truths is the main reason theUnited Nations cannot solve these problems.

Since most nations seem to be going to Copenhagen.
But for the moment serious competition sports are likely to be limited to the developed nations. We really need to consider broadening the range of events.

How about, at the same time as we talk about cutting GHGs by 20% ,we also table the issue of cutting population by 5 -10% ( not world average, which would allow for a lot of free riders but, 5 -10% per nation).

This would provide opportunity for everyone to get involved.

And just think of the GHG emissions we would save by lumping both issues together, rather than running a (second) population conference –and flying them all back at a later date.

Ludwig: "However, the main tenet of this article is of course rock solid. The human population size and the fact that it is still growing rapidly is our overriding problem."

I didn't see that as the main tenet of the article, Ludwig. I thought it was far bleaker than that. I read John as saying we are incapable of anything about the population problem. Despite our wonderful brains we are driven by the same basic instincts as bugs in a bottle. We will breed without without regard to the constraints of the environment, then die like flies. About the only thing our intelligence has given us is the ability for foresee this, and then worry ourselves sick about it. Bugs, and clownfish it seems, are spared this curse of intelligence.

I agree with John. Actually, long ago I decided this was the inevitable path we humans must go down. It is not only inevitable, but normal and natural. This last century of exponential growth is the abnormal thing. I wonder what other species has managed to run riot for a century, unconstrained by food and disease, exploding with exponential growth like a cancer through Gaia. There can't be many.

Still, I am ruled by instinct and desperately want to delay the inevitable - at least for me and mine. To that end I can't help but notice that while the world is over consuming, we in Australia produce twice as much food as we consume, and we have a birth rate below replacement - at least for now. The only thing we lack is the political will to put off our own downfall. The thought "Surely, we must be able to find that" is the foil I use to shield me from visions of the 4 horse man and the apocalypse gracing my backyard in my lifetime.

"you must face the alternative ... we must drastically reduce the human population!"

Replace "human population" with "cost of housing" and this rhetoric seems frighteningly familiar.

I'm more inclined to agree with this article by Fred Pearce:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327271.700-population-overconsumption-is-the-real-problem.html
Yes we are overpopulated, and yes we need to do something about it, but the answer does not have to be draconian.
A very good start -in this country at least- would be to stop paying women to have babies.
This is one issue where market forces should work very well. Peasant societies have always had large families, as a cheap source of labour; this hasn't entirely stopped even now in Australia, in the country.
As I have suggested before, at least one of the reasons birth rates decline in more affluent societies, is because of child labour laws, and compulsory education.
When children become a cost, instead of an asset, fewer people have children.

Grim, "Yes we are overpopulated, and yes we need to do something about it, but the answer does not have to be draconian.
A very good start -in this country at least- would be to stop paying women to have babies."

Australia achieved zero population growth long ago, however government responded with large scale immigration, regularly increasing the numbers to new records.

It is petty criticising support for families when the elephant in the room is immigration.

I have no option but to put this in writing: I've noticed over more than fourty years of engagement with environmentalists and ecological issues the constant re-emergence of populationists who always seem to feel that there are too many of ... somebody else. If you think there are too many people on the planet then you are ethically bound to stop urging others to do the right thing and take positive action to reduce the earth's population...by one. Be a good chap.

Otherwise, the idea that every living person is merely a cost to the planet is nonsense, misanthropic and veers dangerously close to Gaian fascism. It is time ecocentrists showed some courage and actually started talking real dangerous talk - like which classes of people use too much of the earth's resources and which classes of people put too little back.

Or are you scared of real politics?

Cheers.

I wonder how many people on this forum who are concerned about overpopulation have followed my example and voluntarily had no children.

David

Cornflower, as it happens I agree with you on immigration, but the question here is about WORLD population figures. Immigration does not have an enormous affect on overall population figures, except where the immigrant was likely to die, in his/her own country.
anthonykn, may I direct you to the link I provided in my previous post?
Fred Pearce makes the point that it is not so much population, as consumption which is really doing the damage.
There is a great little vid available on the web called "the story of stuff". Annie Lenard claims we need the resources of 5 planets for everyone on Earth to enjoy the standard of living of the average American.
I would suggest we could cut that number down hugely, with the demise of just one custom.
Fashion.
How many people throw out clothes or shoes, not because they are worn out, but because they are not fashionable?
Buy a new car, when their old one is still perfectly servicable?
Knock down houses and buildings, because they are 'dated'?
Would wearing out clothing really affect our standard of living?

I am not sure about the fact we produce twice as much food as we consume, in another opinion piece it was calculated that we only export 30% of out wheat and already a net importer, 20% of fruit and vegetables.
That is not going to support an increase to 35 million.
So where is the food to come from?

Ludwig: "However, the main tenet of this article is of course rock solid. The human population size and the fact that it is still growing rapidly is our overriding problem."

rstuart: "I didn't see that as the main tenet of the article, Ludwig. I thought it was far bleaker than that. I read John as saying we are incapable of anything about the population problem."

Fair enough. Either way, it is certainly bleak.

"...this was the inevitable path we humans must go down. It is not only inevitable, but normal and natural."

Yes.

"This last century of exponential growth is the abnormal thing."

Yes and no. Yes it is very different to the more or less steady state of population levels of most of the species that we see around us. But no, it is no different to a mouse or locust plague, where population sizes accelerate just before the crash event.

All manner of other species have population surges and declines, with varying effects on their ecosystems and other species. That's one of the baseline realities of ecology.

So to that extent, what is happening with humanity is within the natural order of things. In fact I'm inclined to think that Gaia is excited about it all and is happy to let it happen, with a massive extinction rate and changes to ecosystems across the planet, as has happened many times before, which will then lead straight into a major new period of evolution and dynamism of life.

Ahhh, there is SFA that we can do about it. In fact, I think that our best possible efforts will only result in one thing - drawing out the inevitable a bit longer and increasing the magnitude of the crash.

"I wonder how many people on this forum who are concerned about overpopulation have followed my example and voluntarily had no children."

David, I've haven't had any of those horrible little rugrats...and I sure ain't gunna!

Cheers

Gee, I can't imagine why some of our population obsessives have acquired a reputation of being misanthropic.

Frootloops aside, the serious point about this article is that the critical problem of human overpopulation at both the national and global levels has no chance whatsoever of being addressed when those who are most vocal about it start babbling on about "Gaia" and "horrible rugrats".

Indeed, the population obsessives from wealthy countries like Australia who do so are just as much part of the problem as the ignorant peasants in developing countries who breed like rabbits - so to that extent Reid is probably quite correct that humans are incapable of finding a solution to this problem of our own making.

Morgan: "Reid is probably quite correct that humans are incapable of finding a solution to this PROBLEM OF OUR OWN MAKING."

4.6 billion years of evolution of multi cellular biology on this planet that led to our current state and its of our OWN making!

BLASPHEMY!

Its a problem hard wired into every physical and metaphysical fibre of who we are.

The only question is:

"Has 10,000 years of nascent civilisation given us the WISDOM&LEARNING to examine our sexual rapacity dispasionately, so we might all come to the de-populate conclusion simultaneously and conclusively?"

This would not mean the end of sex or children, just the overwhelming global understanding that their strict numerical MANAGEMENT is crucial to the survival of humans, not just so we can continue plundering the planet longer but out of respect for all the pain and suffering of those who have brought our halls of learning to the magnificent and yet still sublime state they are in today.

And now a word from Rupert the Chief Economist:

"Why tell them? They're all gonna die anyway and so will their kids and grandkids. What's the diff if its in 100 years or 10?

The main chance is that we and our Mr Rude polititian puppets get all the sexual pleasure we can pay for in the meantime. Oh and all that trickled-up $money$ gives me such a hard-on!

Its business as usual boys!!

I kinda like that Hannah-Montanna. For the cost of a trip to the space station I bet I could get her for the night"

And a word from the IMam:

"No,No don't tell them, it would be the end of islam and our beautiful sex-driven Jihads. What else to live for?"

<It would be the end of Islam and our beautiful sex-driven Jihads>

How come Islamic law which regards adultery or men and women having sex just for the hell of it as a crime worthy of stoning or death, in theory for men, although usually just for the women, allows this orgy with multiple virgins on arrriving in heaven after having committed Jihad.

Do the female virgins have any say in the matter and could the women of Islamic faith explain to me how this does not appear to subjugate them to men. They are always telling us that Islam does not do this and that they are equal under Islamic law.

Is the world overdue for a war.

KAEP <for the cost of a trip to the space station I bet I could get her for the night>

You are brave to admit that you are so ugly it would cost that much money to convince her.

Who would be the winner after your night of sex? she'd be the one with the millions. All you'd have is a sore Penis.

We probably have Pasteur and Lister to blame for the increase in population since the early 1800's as life expectancies have increased due to advances in medicine. It wasn't until the advent of the contraceptive pill that the birth rate started to decline significantly to counter the higher survivals rates of the aged.

Forum members interested in life expectancy predictions should read
http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html
and while it largely covers America, it has applications elseware.

If you want to do your bit to help reduce the problems of increasing population, I suggest that you eat, drink and be merry and that way you will become obese, increasing you chances of dying due to heart attack, stroke and diabetes. A pack of cigarettes a day would also help.

David

Ludwig, I'm with you on the rugrats, I've never had a desire to
have any, just a desire to make sure that there are no accidents :)

But I think its all a bit of a lost cause, which nature will sort out
in the end. Methinks humans as a species are too stupid to do it.

Just today on BBC TV, they were interviewing members of a Xtian
religious group in the US. They have twisted some bible verse to
their own end and are having all the kids they can pop out. One family
had 10, the other 13 kids. The preacher was preaching "make all the
babies you can to defend the West". With that kind of thinking,
I can't see much hope for the species.

How unsurprising that two of our most prolific misanthropes are middle-aged men who live alone and don't have any children.

That's pretty much what I was getting at.

CJ, that was a rather stupid and ignorant comment. Fact is a like
lots of people, but am perhaps just a bit fussier then you are.

Clearly you are the one with a problem, for as you let women drive
you to drink, then you seemingly don't cope very well with your
own company, a slave to your emotions. That is your problem
and not mine.

Steven LeBlanc's book "Constant Battles" provides a good perspective on this. LeBlanc is a professor of archaeology at Harvard. When he did field work in the American Southwest, he found (pre-Columbian) evidence of fortified communities, collections of trophy heads, and whole villages massacred with the bodies left unburied, along with evidence of malnutrition and serious environmental damage. From examining evidence of war wounds on skeletons, he estimates that about 25% of the male population regularly died in battle (similar to the death rate from battle in the New Guinea Highlands at first contact in the 1930s). He found similar patterns in excavations around the world, and his photographs are particularly convincing.

He found a recurrent pattern. People outbreed their resources and overexploit their environment. When they become desperate enough to take the risk, they then try to kill or drive off their neighbours to take what they have, as in Rwanda in 1994. Occasionally there is a peaceful period, when new technology or a new crop has expanded carrying capacity, or there has been a big die-off due to some disaster, but the population grows again to restore the previous level of misery. Under these conditions, people are forced to overpopulate. A community that cannot field enough warriors will be wiped out.

We in the developed world have actually gotten out of the trap, with birth rates that are down to or below replacement level, although allowing people to externalise the costs of wasteful consumption is still a problem. We have effective contraception, and children are no longer economic assets or needed in large numbers for future defence. Population is only an issue because of past high population growth (as in Europe) and because governments promote mass migration and bribe people to have babies with various subsidies.

In poor countries a lot can be done by promoting the same conditions that worked in developed countries, including compulsory education and a ban on child labour, as Grim has said. Iran brought its birth rate down very quickly.

Divergence and/or Grim,

Could either of you explain how Iran brought their birth rate down?

I looked back at Grim's posts and got a link that mentioned Iran but, as far as I could see, did not say how they acheived that. Then I may have missed it.

My thoughts are that the lack of education and religous reluctance is the main problem, together with lack of available contrception.

I think it is really encouraging that over population is becoming more widely discussed, and that a sensible article like this one has not degenerated into vitriolic exchanges, even breaking the rule that once the Nazis are introduced, all hope is lost for a reasonable discussion.

Leaving rug rats aside (I have a former rug rat myself), I have to object to the assumption that Gaia theory is the preserve of nutters. James Lovelock has demonstrated that the earth always behaves like an organism (which he calls Gaia), and will adapt to whatever changes happen. The critical point is that it may not adapt in a way that is good for humankind, which is why some are desperately trying to rein in carbon emissions to keep us in the goldilocks zone for our own benefit.

There is an interesting book called Plague Species published some years ago which argues that the human population is following the same trajectory as any animal plague, and predicts it will crash to around the 1900 level by the end of this century.

Can't supply a definitive answer on Iran, Banjo, but I suspect the fact that more than half the University entrants this year will be women, has more than a little to do with it. Cheers.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck.

I would leave the Nazi analogies aside, if only the anti-humanists would refrain from comparing humans to cancers and plagues, the recurring motifs of the eugenic and anti-Semitic propaganda of the early 20th Century.

The author of this article and his cheerleaders in these comments may not be Nazis, but neither were Ernst Haeckel or the Romantic Nationalists of the Volkische movement. With hindsight, however, the evolution of genocidal ideology from Johann Frichte to the sinister Eugen Fischer is depressingly clear.

Of course, our nascent genociders here may not be explicitly racist (although as has been pointed out, they do seem mostly to be worried that the teeming brown masses of the developing world aren't dying off as efficiently as the used to), but they certainly *are* species-ist; and there's only one species they seem happy to earmark for vernichtung: homo sapiens.

It may be more than coincidental that the Volkische movement shared a romantic, mystical view of the natural world and an anti-urban "back-to-nature" fantasy not unlike the airier witterings of the Gaia worshippers.

I might also point out, merely by way of observation of course, that doctors joined the NSDAP earlier and in greater numbers than any other professional group.

"you must face the alternative ... we must drastically reduce the human population!"

Replace "human population" with "number of abortions" and this rhetoric seems frighteningly familiar.

Wow, it really does work with any group you don't like, doesn't it?

As we used to say in Primary School, "ain't no prizes for second".

Then your primary school taught very bad grammar.

And they say the standards of education are declining.

The anti-pop articles are by far my favourite on OLO. No where on any other posts will you find the fascists, the flat earthers, misanthropes, anti-immigrationists, Stalinists and mysoginists all together. It's a psychological wonderland.

My dad used to call these people cranks and he was spot on. They're either single lonely men (or Sandra Kanck) - same thing, or they work in the eugenics (genetics?) departments of universities. They're great at working out the genetics of blue eyed boys but considerably less adroit at handling public policy issues such as population.

Population is declining in most western nations (and it has peaked in China and India). Contrary to some posts here, we have more food than we need to feed everyone now and into the future.

If you want to reply to this post anti-pops, would you please refrain from using your 'earth is a closed system - we're all doomed analogies'. They have been defeated time and time again

The Cheryl virus:
This specific brainpox is a chimeric virus that attacks the human brain. The pathogen that causes it:codenamed "Cheryl". It is a recombinant virus made from the nuclear polyhedrosis virus of a flea, the Gillard rhinovirus, and smallpox.

It starts like a common cold, but then it invades the nervous system. It spreads like the common cold: by contact with immigrants. It can be dried into powder and it can get into the air. An early symptom is a blistering process stuck in eternal peak hour traffic & the need to have babies in toilets.

It's neuroinvasive—that means it drives citizens insane with overcrowding, petty aruments and sub rosa racism whilst making trigubuffian oligarchs, media-men and property developers rich and pollutitians powerful. It congests & travels along the backroads to avoid the tolls and invades the free forums to plead for the removal of free speech and sensible population management. It replicates only in the brain for it is barren. The virus makes crystals in the brain cells that force you to see a slowing in all nation's population growth when in reality the 9 billion projected for 2050 has now been revised to nearly 10 billion.

It damages the brain stem of society, the areas that control emotion and violence and feeding. People start to feel petrol-transport will last forever in exponentially increasing populations and that there will always be an overabundance of food, water and free space. CherylBrainpox eventually causes people to attack themselves and to eat their own flesh. Caused by damage to a single gene, it results in a bizarre manifestation of aggression directed toward other people. The combined Cheryl& Gillard viruses knock out the gene for an enzyme named hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HGPRT), and that somehow leads to believing slavery is a rewarding form of reducing unemployment.

The virus engages in a massive burst of propaganda, immigration &baby bonuses. The last burst almost melts the human brain, triggering a wild change of behavior in the hours leading up to the death of the human race.

"CJ, that was a rather stupid and ignorant comment."

Hahahaha. Yes indeed Yabby. Just what we've come to expect from kindergarten-kid Morgan!

Oooow, isn't our Cheryl a might whacky!!

If she keeps that up, she'll be giving Morgan a run for his money!!

Thank goodness the number of abject loopers has declined in recent times and the population issue can now be generally discussed in all sorts of media and fora without the defamation and chronic bullsh!t factors hijacking or killing off the discussion.

Incidentally, Morgan has stated his agreement with me over the population issue on numerous occasions. But of course rather than express like-mindedness here, he just has to find something to pick at. What a sad soul!

[posting from luvly Brunswick Heads. You still here KK? I'm sitting in the video shop. Come on down and say hullo (:>)]

The pro-populate mob really are quite radical and brings out the looney on these threads.

If you want to undermine the sustainable population argument just mention abortion, euthanasia and Malthus or even Nazis to detract from the many valid argments made many times on OLO. Some people might even be suckered by these irrelevant diversions.

There is no hope really in rational argument, we have been down this path before. There are those that believe the environment will always provide no matter what and that resources are limitless, and the poor get poorer while populations continue to flourish, and that we in the West can continue the cycle of consumerism to the detriment of the rest of the world.

I am not sure of the psychological profile of these people as I am not a psychiatrist but it is fun watching them think the sky will fall in if we actually discuss the issue of population and the fact that some resources are finite and others are only renewable if they demand does not outstrip supply.

Perhaps it is a stick a head in the sand approach and hope it will all go away.

Cripes - now he's stalking me IRL... at any rate, my little holiday's over and it's back to the grindstone. A little unsettling to think that my getaway with the kids and grandkids could have been disturbed by a misanthropic nutter who apparently hates children. [Disclaimer: Ludwig and I used to be acquainted IRL decades ago]

As I've stated here countless times, I agree that human overpopulation is the greatest ecological problem the world faces. However, I refuse to countenance the blatantly misanthropic and/or racist 'solutions' that are inevitably proffered by the population obsessives. As someone who is both an environmentalist and a humanist, I believe that it's not only possible for people to work towards global population (and hence ecological) sustainability, but also that ultimately human cooperation and collaboration is our only hope.

I also generally agree with Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis - but it is a very big leap from regarding the Earth as an adaptive organism to attributing it with consciousness, as the lunatic fringe do. That sort of nonsense only invites derision from the perpetual growth mob.

*but they certainly *are* species-ist; and there's only one species they seem happy to earmark for vernichtung: homo sapiens*

Actually not so Clownfish, you are the one being species-ist, for
you only focus on one species, never mind all the rest. You seem
quite content for humanity to trash the planet to make room for
ever more humans. 1.5 billion before cheap oil, 6.5 billion a hundred
years later, heading for 10 billion shortly, is hardly "vernichtung".

Now Cheryl has an excuse. As a glorified typist, keyboards are
her speciality, not genetics or biology. So we can't expect too
much intelligent input from her.

In your case, I was hoping that we'd at least get you thinking,
if you understood the basics, but perhaps its all beyond you.

Now the good news is that if you guys want to trash the planet at
any cost, it won't affect me or any of my offspring one little bit!

So go right ahead, it won't affect me in the slightest.

The bad news is that its an awfull shame IMHO, that so many humans
don't understand basic biology. You'd only need to read Darwin's
"Origin of Species" to understand the basics.

Fact is that any species which keeps multiplying, eventually comes
to a point where its unsustainable, the next thing, one way or
another it crashes with a thud. Humans are not beyond biology, even
if many kid themselves that they are.

But it sounds like CJ is wrong yet again, our species will never
agree on anything, it will learn the hard way. So be it.

I have a bit of a problem with Lovelock. From my limited reading it appears that he thinks the world is adapting to accomodate the needs of its inhabitants, whether plant or animal. I would have thought that it was the other way around and that plants and animals, including homo sapiens, have evolved to adapt to the changing environment.
That was OK while the environment was changing at a rather benign rate. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, as we are now chewing up resources at an accelerated rate to accomodate the ever improving standard of living of an increasing number of people. We haven't quite reached the peak yet, but when it starts to go down hill, as it inevitably will, it truly will be the survival of the fittest. The survivors will then have to start from scratch again in a totally different environment to that which we enjoy today in much the same way that those species which adapted most successfully in millenia gone past survived to produce the current species. The earth will survive, but man in his present form may not.

David

Thanks John Reid. Please keep up the good work.

I'm pleased to see that the misanthropic wowsers of the anti-humanists are still entirely immune to sarcasm, and yabby actually rose to the "species-ist" bait. Assuming the term "speciesism" actually has a real meaning, and is not just another specious neologism coined by the nattering nitwits of Gaia, what species is *not* species-ist? And you accuse *me* of not understanding Darwin! At least I have read the great man - have you?

Just to clear up any misunderstandings, I will (once again) state clearly: no, I am *not* in favour of unfettered population growth, nor am I "happy to trash the planet".

But I am most assuredly NOT in favour of letting nascent eco-fascism slide by unopposed. I know you'll say I'm over-reacting, but as Umberto Eco has said, "it would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, 'I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares.' Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world."

After all, it didn't happen that the Germans suddenly woke up one morning with a sudden urge to wear natty brown shirts and go around breaking Jews' windows. The development of fascism in Germany, for instance, was a process from at least the late 19th century that, in hindsight, seems depressingly clear; in the progressively more extreme writing of the anti-population zealots in this forum I smell a rat, and I'll say so.

cont ...

As the great anti-fascist Orwell himself noted, rigourously defining fascism is almost impossible, but he conceded that the general understanding is “something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class ... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’”.
The anti-humanists tick pretty well all those boxes. Especially cruelty, with their nudge-wink celebrations of natural disasters as having a “silver lining” for Mother Gaia (no doubt the champagne corks were popping at SPA this last week).

Like many people of the “Dark Valley” of the 1920s and 30s, many of the anti-humanists are either too unscrupulously obscurantist or too foolish to actually say what they mean, or take their arguments to their logical conclusion.

If one is to believe this article, not only must we lower the human population by two thirds within the next fifty years, *all* humans are detrimental to the all-sacred “environment”. What follows from these assumptions? Not only must ome 80 million humans a year be liquidated (a figure that would stagger even Hitler, Stalin or Mao), but a best-case scenario would see *all* humans removed from the “books of the planet”.

If it's "species-ist" to oppose this sort of dangerous folly, well, I'm proudly species-ist.

Using your take on things clownfish I would also be in your camp.

But the facist argument trotted out by the populate or perish lot, lacks imagination. Human beings have adapted to many changes in their environments over the years without recourse to drastic and inhumane measures, corrupt regimes excepted.

Let's face it the current inequitable distribution of resources and power is already inhumane from a population point of view. Surely it is better to prevent blowouts in population by reducing incentives to populate and by distributing wealth and social welfare to those countries with higher mortality rates ie. the West to share some of the spoils.

Currently millions of people die each year from preventable diseases and man-induced poverty.

Improvements in health, education and welfare will go a long way to reduce population without resorting to the absurd suggestions some people are making.

Being smarter and more clever in how we use resources including technology is also important but unfettered population growth is not a desirable goal.

Wow, Fascism, Nazism, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Auschwitz, Blackshirts, brownshirts, Orwell, Eco, Darwin, Gaia, phew!

All in the one post. Keep it up Clowny, the internet loves you.

So clownfish, are you saying that you agree with eliminating the Baby bonus and reducing immigration to net zero (same number of immigrants as emigrants)?

"Cripes - now he's stalking me IRL"

By goodness KK you've got this negativity disease real bad! I was looking forward to the possibility of meeting you, in a totally friendly manner, IRL. But no, you just had to spin it into a full-on negative thing. Has anyone told you that you are not mentally well?

Hey, how's this 'hate Ludwig' trip working for you? This attitude that you just had to force upon us, despite the good relationship that we used to have, followed by my long-time patience with your increasing nasty slurs and slanders - it seems as though it has all backfired on you badly. You seem just a tad more bitter and twisted than you used to be! You are sounding like a very sad soul.

.
Pelican it is indeed perplexing as to why the likes of Cheryl bother posting on this sort of thread. What is their point? Can't they see that they skittle their argument by expressing themselves in such a hate-filled, slanderous, um...Morgan-like manner, rather than a gentle logical tactful manner that might see them taken half-seriously instead of just being dismissed as nutters?

Anyway, as I said, people of this sort are fading away in the population debate and the debate is gaining strength all the time.

Hopefully it will be as major an issue in the minds of the general public and politicians as climate change now is, within another year or two.

The other problem with people like Cheryl, is that the "facts" that they quote are generally nonsense, so that completely negates their argument. Talk about "BS baffles brains".

David

Clownfish, you are unjustified in labelling those who see sense in reducing the world human population as anti-humanist. I think we tend to see it as the only way the human race can survive, and the sooner we start the less bumpy the ride will be. Just think about it - everyone has a figure for the optimum national or world population. In the case of Australia, I have heard it argued that we can only sustainably support 7 million and also that we could support 150 million. The point is, everyone has a top limit in their head, and at the rate of doubling the population every 50 years, say, we haven't got all that long until we will have to apply the brakes. We need to think about these things and sooner or later, take action. Articles such as this are enormously valuable because they help raise awareness of population concerns to a level where politicians mightn't be afraid to discuss them.

Candide, are you going to voluntarily depopulate so others may thrive?

Italy has been reported as successfully depopulating or was it a media beat up?

Unemployed teachers, no children in some small towns,

Will the depopulate pundits staff the nursing homes full of childless oldies with no younger relatives to care for them throughout their final days?

When there are 25 retired for one worker, what then? Euthanasia -- a great solution for superannuation.

How many times has an unborn who would discover the cure for cancer been aborted?

More people, more CO2, ie more plant food and hence a greener planet, just kidding.

Ludwig, you seem to be becoming quite unhinged. I thought I'd made it clear in discussions here at OLO that I don't wish to engage with you in your obsessive misanthropic rants about this topic. Given that, I find your IRL stalking of me quite creepy. Please stop it.

Get help, old son.

One of the reasons the socio biologists love to write about public policy is that they have no more intellectual pull than the yo-yo craze of the 1960s.

They were hopelessly smashed in this forum a few months ago when King's double articles on population caught them out.

The anti-pops (the nutters at Sustainable Population Australia) are basically a small clique of early EO Wilson nutters who want to save the world through sterilisation programs. Throwbacks to the 1930s and further back.

They are the spotty faced, rubrics cube playing geeks of our teenage years who haven't grown up. That's rather endearing. I can't work out whether their mysoginist tendancies are born from awkwardness around women or whether they feel threatened by them.

One of the reasons why the anti-pop movement won't take off - and why this argument will be used to wedge the Greens at the next election - is due to the type of comments in posts such as this: immature, uninformed and antihumanist.

Banjo,

On Iran's success in bringing down fertility rates

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2001/update4ss

Clownfish,

Fascism and the devaluing of humanity you decry is likely to appear when there is intense competition for resources. Hitler was considered a joke before the Great Depression. Population growth is only high in developed countries such as Australia or the US because it is being imposed by governments. High immigration and higher fertility rates do damage on both a local and a global scale because of the high average consumption in these countries. One additional Australian is equivalent to 10 to 20 additional people in a poor country. The solution is to vote out growthist politicians. If you consider this fascism, so be it. We have zero influence on what people do in other countries, but nor are we required to take them in and shield them from the consequences of their bad decisions.

Cowboy Joe,

Fertility rates in Italy are so low as to cause serious problems, but fertility rates above 1.5 would make the decline slow enough to be quite manageable. It is not an unreasonable ambition for Europeans to become self-sufficient in food. We cannot keep the population young by continually growing it, because those new babies and migrants will grow old too. How do you then provide them with the pensions and health care they will need? Still more population growth to standing room only? This is a pyramid scam.

Divergence,
Thanks for that link,I will save it for reference, and I hope many others on OLO will read it. I really am impressed as it shows what can be done with a concerted effort by Government with the support of religions. Wish Iran could export the policy to many other countries, especially those that suffer famine regularly and to the Vatican.

It does give me some hope for the future. If Iran can do it so can other countries. All that is required is the will power.

Thanks again. Ludwig, please read the link.

pelican, I agree with much of what you say - that humans are adaptable and damned clever at solving problems, and that simple, humane measures such as redistribution of resources would go a long way to sorting out our problems - which is why I am so opposed to the mischievous dog-whistling in this article.

My "take on things", pelican, and Candide, is that I take the perhaps rather unfashionable view that what people say is, more or less, precisely what they mean. When on January 30, 1939, Hitler spoke of “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe”, he quite clearly meant it.

So, on reading this article, it is apparent that the author believes: we face an imminent threat to the future of (non-human) life on Earth; the survival of (non-human) life on earth must have absolute priority; we only have about 50 years to act; there are *at least* 5 billion humans too many; almost all humans are detrimental to the environment.

Logically, therefore, the conclusion is simple: we absolutely must prioritise the survival of life on Earth; in order to do so, 5 billion human beings must be removed from it within the next 50 years. Even if everyone, every single human being on the planet, was sterilised tomorrow, at current death rates, in 50 years there would still be just over 4 billion humans too many.

Therefore, *by John Reid’s own arguments*, for the sake of the survival of life on Earth, over 80 million humans must be liquidated, every year for the next 50 years. The lucky survivors, it would seem, will have to adapt to life as primitive hunter-gatherers.

Now, please tell me why I shouldn’t be concerned about people who clearly think like this?

Ericc, I realise that those proposals are SPA’s platform, so no entrapment for you! I *do* agree with them, up to a point.

Reducing immigration to Australia to net zero, or even slightly negative for a time, is not a bad idea (providing it is strictly non-racially based). However, are you then prepared for the massive investment in defence technology that would necessitate? After all, even Tim Flannery has conceded that if Australia is to remain a large, sparsely population nation surrounded by small, crowded nations, we’d better have some pretty heavy-duty defences in place.

The Baby Bonus, as it was originally conceived (no pun intended) was a sensible social welfare measure designed by Keating to offset the initial expenses involved in having a baby (baby furniture, clothing, 1 parent not working) that most new parents struggle with. Costello’s expansion of the concept to being a reward for having “one for the country” grossly distorted its original intent.

I don't flatly oppose SPA's platforms, I just get alarmed when they start talking of one-child policies, and express their admiration for a country which still officially practises eugenics.

As an aside, I might also note that no-one has tackled some of the questionable assumptions in the article.

“Unfortunately, it is inherent in the collective mindset of our species that most people avoid even thinking about the problem, let alone acting to try to solve it.” Says who?

“In 2005 the biocapacity of the Earth was 13.6 Ggha”. Again, says who? The Global Footprint Network, who are? On what basis do they make their magic calculation (it would be merely capricious of me to suggest that like their pals at Greenpeace, FOE and the WWF, they probably pull it out of their proverbial).

“It is understood this figure (the UN most-likely growth scenario) is likely to be revised upwards. Some would suggest the 2050 population will be nearer 9.5-10 billion.” Understood by whom? Who is suggesting this population? The UN? The bloke down the pub?

Clownfish,

Q. where do the SPA get their figures?

A. Facebook

Clownfish – You’ve made it clear that you support the central policies of the sustainable population movement and yet your posts imply that anybody who considers those views is nearing fascism.

Can you understand the flip side where people who have no other interest than making short term profits on real estate and keeping wages low by bringing in cheap labour, yell “racist Nazi people haters” whenever the environment or sustainability is mentioned?

With respect to defence, I can’t see a scenario where increasing the population changes anything about our defence. If the Chinese Army wants to invade, having 35 million or 22 million won’t make much difference. I think the Chinese would find it cheaper and simpler to buy whatever they need, anyway. Similar Indonesia. Who else then will be invading? New Zealand?

As I’ve said in numerous other posts and articles: The average Australian does not benefit from immigration or higher population. He gets poorer and his environment gets worse.

That is on the selfish side. On the high minded side, if we agree that there are dangers to increasing world population we look hypocritical saying “All of you poor countries should decrease your populations, but we are going to do everything we can to increase ours. Oh and send us all your doctors and engineers. We want to get richer and we don’t care if we steal the best and brightest from your country, too.”

On most people not thinking about population or sustainability I agree with John Reid. Most people don’t.

On the earth’s biocapacity, I agree with you, it is unlikely anybody really knows, but the general theme that the earth’s capacity to support comfortable life for all of us is likely to be exceeded with continued population growth is true. And besides that, why should it be our goal to cram as many people as possible onto the planet. Why not make it our goal to alleviate poverty or cure cancer?

On the earth’s population revised upwards, I agree with you, “some would suggest” is a bad mistake by an academic with a PhD.

ericc, I support *some* of the policies of the SPA; I also maintain that enthusiastically cheering on a dictatorship like China, and urging that the rest of us follow their example is at least trying on some shiny black boots. Further, someone whose *own arguments* dictate the murder of some 4 billion human beings most certainly nearing fascism, if not outright lunacy.

Of course, John Reid may well be horrified at the thought of extermination camps churning out 80 million corpses a year; in which case, he clearly hasn't thought through the implications of what he's saying. All I've done is take his arguments as they stand, and do the arithmetic. He stands damned by his own words.

As for defence, as Flannery argued in "The Future Eaters", if Australia pursues the path of low population, then we will need to invest heavily in high-tech, remotely operated weaponry that doesn't require significant manpower, to offset the overwhelming advantages in cannon-fodder of some of our near neighbours who would otherwise view our vast, mostly empty lebensraum with avaricious intent.

Clownfish et al, the only ones who are talking about deliberately murdering anyone are you lot. The rest of us just want the citizens of the third world countries to stop breeding like rabbits (or actually like kangaroos) whenever it looks like the food supply is improving a bit.

On the other hand, I would agree with your premise about needing high tech weaponry, but that is generally what is happening anyway. The Yanks seem to be adopting that approach in Afghanistan and the Israelis are certainly doing it against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

David

In the first place, the reason our 'wide land' is so empty, is because there isn't a lot out there. The Sahara is pretty empty too, I believe.
As has been mentioned, many believe Oz is overpopulated now. I doubt if our near neighbours would want to give up their tropical island homes to live in a desert.
In the second place, long before there was a balance of power in the Cold War, the propensity for war was balanced by the risk of dying, against agressive killing. As Khomeini and a long line of war mongers before him demonstrated, you need significant superiority in numbers to employ cannon fodder techniques.
In a democracy like the USA, imperialism requires a very high kill to casualty ratio. Too many casualties, and wars quickly become unpopular.
Rather than high tek, what we need world wide is a move to actual defence forces, instead of offence forces. In our case, a shore based defence system would be cheaper, and significantly slow down the arms race, if our neighbours didn't feel threatened.

I am gratified by the number of people who responded to my article, De-Populate or Perish. By my counting, at today’s date (9 October) there have been 22 people who have commented, of whom 14 seem to agree with my thesis, namely, Earth cannot support a human population of more than 9 billion people, all seeking to improve their standards of living, while climate change is diminishing the planet’s biocapacity. Six commentators disagree with me, and 2, I am not sure whether they agree or disagree.
We are locked into a world that will be at least 4°C warmer by 2100 and a human population that will be more than 9 billion by 2050. The consequences of these two factors will be catastrophic; the sequelae will be starvation, food and water wars, and mass migrations. I hoped to provoke discussion and to encourage others to contribute ideas about what should be done to minimize the impact of an unsupportably large human population fighting each other for a share of the planet’s diminishing resources. I would still be glad to hear specific proposals, and direct responses to my conclusion that contraception must be practised universally and as soon as possible, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
I shall respond to points raised by some of the commentators in a second post.
John M Reid

De-populate or Perish
(1) The data I used come from a number of sources, including UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division; Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook, US Bureau of Census, articles in scientific journals ranging from Nature, and Science, to New Scientist and Scientific American, and Global Footprint Network (GFN) Living Planet Report (LPR) 2008. With regard to the last source, 2 commentators questioned the validity of the data I used, particularly relating to the bioresources of the planet. I can only refer them to www.panda.org and invite them to download the LPR 2008 and read the Technical Notes, FAQs, and Acknowledgements.
GFN is supported by 77 ‘Sponsoring Partners’, 8 ‘Endorsing Partners’, and about 58 ‘Participating Partners’. The partners include the equivalents of state and local governments, NGOs, universities, and private environmental consultants. GFN commissions studies by its partners and provides stringent Footprint Standards and Guidelines covering the methods for collection of information for Footprint Studies (www.footprintstandards.org). GFN and the LPRs have been referred to in both Nature and Science. In other words, the data are as good as it gets – which is not to say their accuracy cannot be improved by further research, but it is very unlikely GFN is substantially wrong.
(2) One commentator took me to task for writing, “some would suggest” the estimate of the world’s human population in 2050 may revised upwards from 9.1 billion. The “some” include:
ACF World Population projections (9–11 billion); UN projections (9.22 billion); Andrew McNamara, Queensland Conservation Council (9.7 billion); Population Reference Bureau (9.4 billion); and US Census Bureau (9 billion by 2043).
(3) One commentator suggested I am advocating “over 80 million humans must be liquidated, every year for the next 50 years.” I am not suggesting any such thing, and I specifically stated the reduction in the population must come about by non-lethal, non-discriminatory means. It would be more accurate to say I am advocating that every year for the next 50 years over 80 million fewer human beings should be born!
John M Reid

Mr Reid,

Your logic is impeccable, the data is telling & your solution is the way to go.

All well and good until the oestrogen and testosterone kick in every morning. Then all the logic aft lays gang aglay.

As the responsibility of contraception in its finality lies with women it is primarily up to them to dissociate the concept of equality from the concept of sustainability. Polititians won't help. they ride the wave of female pram&nappy-power like a surfboard or a Harley. As it stands women derive over 90% of their equal rights through unequal reproductive rights. Once a woman has children she has business, politics and lawyers in her grasp. Thats not an easy thing you ask them to relinquish en-masse. Sure there are exceptions but they are no where near sufficient in number to avoid the ultimate conclusion that legislation must be brought to bear on women either through incentives or through penalties to cause them to use contraception in a meaningful way.

A fertile woman is like a kid with a football. Its just no use telling her not to kick it!

I'd say to women what a laywer once told me after he ripped me off:
"You'll just have to find some other way to make money- IE power, nee equal rights".

But women can then say to their besotted suitors "Kill, Kill Kill for ME for my rights or no nooky", and the suitors testosterroniously WILL ..

War is inevitable. The horrors of WWI & WWII are almost forgotten now. Women will never fight frontline en-masse despite a few publicised exceptions out of 3.5 billion women. They will wait for the best man to win. Isn't that evolution? Isn't that what has destroyed grand civilisations of the past and what will destroy ours, sending the human race back into a protracted Dark Age.

If men and women both, are not strong enough to face who we hormonally are, then there is NO contraception SOLUTION only evolution and deprivation for all.

Morgan, I've got a friend who has followed our exchanges religiously right from the start.

This is what he wrote in response to your last post on this thread:

"...he is absolutely intractable, a lost cause, and worse; arrogant, ignorant, conceited and vain to misunderstand your offer to meet him."

Yes....except that you didn't misunderstand my offer to meet you given that I just happened to be in the same place at almost the same time. You just turned it into a totally negative thing.

The first time you mentioned stalking, I interpreted it as just a bit of typical CJ over-the-top totally negative and not really serious commentary. But then in your subsequent post you mentioned it again, in an obviously very serious manner.

Jeez you are ill! The paranoia riseth up to a critical level in your grey matter! But then it doesn't come as a surprise. If you treat people in your real world anything like you treat them on OLO, then there are bound to be a few that you have seriously alienated who would clobber you if they got the chance. So....watch your back young kid!

.
John Reid, good to see you come back and participate in the discussion. Too few authors do this on this forum.

Russell, it's nice that you have a friend - particularly one who's willing to "follow our exchanges religiously right from the start", without participating themself. S/he sounds just as loopy as you.

<< I just happened to be in the same place at almost the same time >>

Yeah right. Get help, and don't approach me in person under any circumstance. You've been warned.

Huh?

CJ, my identity is not hard to find if you do a bit of digging. So keep trying if you've got nothing better to do, which appears to be the case.

"...don't approach me in person under any circumstance. You've been warned."

Unlike you, I've got no interest in knowing who you really are or if you go under your real name or not on OLO. The chance to meet you, on friendly terms, was entirely opportunistic, given that I was in the same place that you had announced you were in a few days earlier.

So for goodness sake, you can let go of your utterly paranoid fear of big bad Ludwig coming to get you in the middle of the night.... and concentrate on those in your real world that you have no doubt seriously offsided.

I won't be extending a friendly hand nor any sort of friendly gesture to you ever again. But I will be fully exploring the possibility of legal action over the copious and blatant defamation that you have launched against me on OLO. Stay tuned.

Oh, a word of advice: if I remain anonymous on this forum, then your slanders and slurs will probably not be deemed as significant as they would if you were to announce my real name. If all your defamatory carry-on gets directly linked with my real name on this forum then look out, you could be in real trouble. Think about that for while.

Have a nice day.

__________

KAEP

I don't think it is quite as grim as you express. Well...globally yes, but in Australia, no.

There will be a time in the near future when the population issue hits big-time awareness with the general populace. When that happens, it will become politically tenable...in fact political essential, to stem the rising population.

Within this paradigm, it will become socially unacceptable for couples to have more than two kids, more acceptable to have one and most acceptable to have none.

There will also be a massive demand for the reduction of immigration to net zero or less.

Russell, my use of your real first name is intended to remind you that I know exactly who you are, and my warning establishes legally and unequivocally that I do not want to meet with you. I have no intention of identifying you publicly at OLO, since I respect your privacy - rather, I am demanding that you respect mine.

That you seem unaware of why your approach to me was totally inappropriate is confirmation to me that you are socially handicapped and mentally unbalanced. I mentioned in an unrelated thread that I was holidaying with my kids, and lo and behold you travel thousands of kilometres to front up at that very place less than a week later, after a week of increasingly acrimonious online argument between us.

The last thing I am is "afraid" of you, but I am disturbed that you have lost touch with reality to the extent that you thought such behaviour is reasonable. Further, I certainly wouldn't want someone as misanthropic as you anywhere near my kids and grandkids.

Lastly, since you know that I post here under my real name, your laughable threats about defamation clearly apply far more to you than they do to me.

Think about that for a while - and get help.

Karshish, I specifically acknowledged that you did not directy advocate the murder of 80 million human beings per year. What I did point out was that, by your own arguments, and given current global death rates, that was the inescapable conclusion.

Even if "every year for the next 50 years over 80 million fewer human beings should be born", it still won't be enough to meet your "absolute priority": the 4 or 5 billion too many we already have aren't going to conveniently drop dead in time to Save The Planet, are they?

To draw the historical analogy again, neither Ernst Haeckel nor Alfred Ploetz actually advocated the mass extermination of "untermenschen"; it was left to others less principled but dreadfully more practical to draw that inevitable conclusion from their theories of "racial hygiene".

My concern is that we never see such murderous delusion, however well intentioned, ever again.

VK3AUU, ericc, etc., my points regarding defence were 1)how many of the "green left" would countenance a massive build-up in high-tech weaponry as politically acceptable, and 2)how many of you would be willing to shill out the extra tax $ to pay for it? (assuming any more can be squeezed out of the taxpayer after meeting the inevitably increased taxes and utility costs from Rudd's CPRS?

KAEP, your rampant misogyny continues to amuse me almost as much as it astounds me.

"....and my warning establishes legally and unequivocally that I do not want to meet with you."

Der... you don't say. Don't you think you've made that clear enough already....like, about half a dozen times?

Don't you think I regret extending a friendly offer for you to come and meet me, if you felt so inclined, by telling you where I was? You have entrenched your position as the lowest of the low on OLO by turning that friendly gesture into a total negative, and then harping on it at every opportunity? Boy oh boy, you are verging on spasticity!

Oh, and don't worry about the forum rules - that is, about putting up post after post that have nothing to do with the thread subject.

And don't worry about the defamation business. Constant slurs and slanders, which you fully know are unfounded and which can easily be shown to be so if it comes to the crunch, don't constitute defamation. No....not in the insular rule-less world of Morgan.

Alright, so you are terribly spooked by the possibility of us meeting in the real world. But you've got no qualms at all about being as nasty as you can in the cyberworld! You apparently feel totally secure in doing that....until there is the possibility of some of the consequences your cybercrap transcending into your real world. Then you go into a real tizz! In fact, you appear to have freaked right out!!

Alright, I'm pleased that you thought twice about about spilling my real name on this forum. You can see that it would be most unwise, because I do have a very good point regarding the connection of my real name with your much-repeated defamatory babble, don't I.

Meanwhile, continue calling me Russell to your heart's content, if it pleases you.
_____________

The Australian Conservation Foundation and the Greens are finally making some real noises about Australia's massive rate of population growth. Their comments are very basic, of the sort that they should have been expressing years ago. But at least it is finally happening.

continued

If these comments can strike a chord with the very high level of latent concern in the community about record high immigration, etc, then there could easily be a massive outcry against the Ruddite maximised expansionist policies.

Now, if Turnbull and his crew could just see the potential here and get in on the whole population stabilisation / sustainability paradigm up front, and then let it develop following their initiative, they could quickly gain a whole lot of support...and be in a good position to win the next election.

If they don't do this, they haven't got the slightest chance of winning the next election, or the one after it.

What this country DESPERATELY needs is for the libs to see that their future lies fairly and squarely with the embrace of sustainability in Australia, of which population stabilisation is the single most important factor.

As for the rest of the world, population stabilisation/reduction and sustainability are about a million times harder to achieve.

Ludwig, are you seriously suggesting the Australian Liberal party should/would ever give up the neo liberal, economically 'rational' idea of a growth economy, in favour of a sustainable one?
Then again, why not. If the so called Labor party can invent economic rationalism, and pursue a blatantly neo liberal agenda, why shouldn't the pole cats change their spots.
Can't see it happening, but.

Ludwig, you mean the Libs should dog-whistle the "f@ck off, we're full" bogan vote?

That's about it in a nutshell, Clownfish. Anything and anybody for the cause - no matter how hateful or dishonest they are.

Sort of a 'the enemy of humanity is my friend' kind of argument.

While I support strategies to limit human population growth, I refuse to stoop to those politics.

"...are you seriously suggesting the Australian Liberal party should/would ever give up the neo liberal, economically 'rational' idea of a growth economy..."

Yair, it's a hell of a big ask isn't it Grim.

But they need to ask themselves what they need to do to win power. And continuing to be a virtual mirror image of Rudd, while he continues to be on a roll, obviously won't cut it.

I don't think it involves a major change of spots, so to speak. In fact, the pursuance of continuous rapid expansionism would surely be at odds with true Liberal philosophy if we had a close look at it.

Afterall, a crazy policy like this that directly threatens out future wellbeing has got to be fundamentally at odds with any political philosophy, short of one that advocates an almighty implosion of our society.

I can't see the Libs doing it. But hey, I'm not willing to let go of the possibility.

.
Congratulations Morgan, you actually posted something relevant to the thread subject, albeit as superficial and silly as....as... well, as a typical Morgan comment!

Clownfish,

Population growth can continue despite obvious deterioration in the environment and in human quality of life, even to the point of collapse, because the parents get the profits from child labour and the support in old age, while the social and environmental costs are shared with everyone else in the society. The Chinese say that they instituted the one-child policy because they were staring collapse in the face. There were undeniably abuses, but enforcement was mostly done with fines, denial of government benefits, and economic punishments, such as the demolition of houses. The Chinese call this "making them wear small shoes". Effectively, they were denying people the right to externalise the costs of their reproductive decisions. Human rights are all very well, provided that you are not too dead to enjoy them, but what if they are in conflict? Does the right to a big family trump every other right that a human being can have? I believe compulsion is only justified if the only alternative is collapse. Nevertheless, I prefer the Chinese solution to what was done in Ireland in 1848 or in Rwanda in 1994.

Mexico, which now has replacement level fertility, and Iran show what can be accomplished with purely voluntary measures. In Australia and other developed countries that still have high population growth rates, the real problem is too much immigration, due to growthist politicians, and not too many babies. Where they do use compulsion with reference to fertility, it is to force the rest of us to subsidise large families through the tax system and not to drag women away for forced abortions.

Who has said anything about a "right to a big family"?

All I've asked for is the right not to be liquidated by murderous fanatics, self-righteously convinced they are acting "for the greater good".

"Human rights are all very well".

Yes they are: they're our defense against fascists.

You anti-humanists would do well to stop using China as your poster-child. Unless, of course, you admire a dictatorship that forcibly abort nearly-term pregnancies, practices eugenics and harvests the organs of imprisoned dissidents.

*All I've asked for is the right not to be liquidated by murderous fanatics*

Just relax Clowny, you haven't annoyed us quite enough for that
as yet:)

But see it this way: Birth numbers the world over have dropped
dramatically, in all those countries where free and easy birth
control has been available and affordable to couples.

Some of the oldies will tell you about the liberating experience
of being able to have sex for the fun of it, without the risk of
yet another kid. The pill frankly changed the world.

Now most of the "breeding like rabbits" stuff is taking place in
countries where women don't have access to good family planning,
even if they would like to. Many simply don't have the money,
many simply don't have the facilities.

People will have sex, no matter what their nationality, its part
of human instinct.

So the third world is in a bit of a dilemma. The more food we send
them, the healthier they are, the more babies are popped out.
Twenty years later, we have twice as many to feed.

So lets start with the basics. Lets provide every woman on the planet
with a choice about how many children she would like to have.

All the information that I have seen from places like Africa, is
not that women pop out kids because they want more kids, but because
like all of us they are human and enjoy sex, its part of our instinct.

That kind of programme would be easily affordable and have dramatic
consequences in terms of population. The only snag is that the
religious lobby will fight it all the way, as they still believe
that crossing your legs for Jesus, is the better option. Reality
shows us that its nonsense.

"breeding like rabbits"

Bullsh!t.

As Harvard scholar Nicholas Eberstadt has stated, "world population increased not because people were breeding like rabbits, but because they stopped dying like flies".

Which seems to be the bit that Western Green elites have trouble with. "Where did all these brown people come from," they wail. "They're using up all our precious resources!"

Hence their not-so-subtle glee when the odd disaster does some of their dirty work for them. "Look on the bright side," they gloat. They even dare to dream of a global holocaust: "What if a billion humans died over the course of, say, the next ten years from starvation or swine flu? That would take a lot of pressure off natural systems."

But then, why wait for a convenient disaster that may not come along? Hence the anti-humanists are growing bolder in their suggestions.

To use your own words, "the more food we send them, the healthier they are, the more babies are popped out. Twenty years later, we have twice as many to feed." Ergo, we should stop sending them food, and let them all starve to death the way Mother Gaia intended?

Yes, given the choice, women will usually elect to have fewer children. This is in fact what is occurring throughout most of the world. People in almost every corner of the world are becoming healthier, wealthier and better educated.

Which is why global population growth is slowing, and is expected to plateau this century. If the experience of wealthy, educated Western nations is anything to go by, it may well start to decline thereafter.

The problem the Green Left Gaia worshippers have is that that still leaves too many other children to share their treats with, so they chuck a right tanty and demand that those other nasty billions of children just go away.

Trouble is, they're not going to conveniently do that, are they?

So, what's your (final) solution?

*So, what's your (final) solution?*

My final solution is quite simple, Clowny. If all women on the planet
only had the children that they wanted, there would not be a
population problem. So I am for giving them all that choice.

*Yes, given the choice, women will usually elect to have fewer children.*

You make my point for me, thank you Clowny :)

*Bullsh!t.*

No bullsh!t. Do your own research if you wish. In sub Saharan
Africa the use of contraceptives runs at 12%, in Somalia at 1%.
So they pop out babies like rabbits. The extra 80 million a year
mouths to feed, are nearly all from the third world, countries where
contraception is not available etc.

*Ergo, we should stop sending them food, and let them all starve to death the way Mother Gaia intended?*

Ah Clowny, your words not mine. My suggesting is to send them
modern family planning methods, along with the food.

*"They're using up all our precious resources!"*

Your words not mine. Fact is those with money will get the resources,
those without money will miss out. That is the reality.

Clownfish I understand your concerns but do you really think in the modern day we cannot have a discussion about populuation sustainability that does not involve mass sterilization or genocide.

Greater economic equity and social security will achieve the same and improve the living standards of those in the developing world. We in the West have to be prepared to lower our standard of living to be able to share the resources more equitably. People will often argue that this equates to living in grass huts and taking on a hunter gatherer existence. This is rot.

Pelican, I wouldn't be too certain about the hunter-gatherer bit. By the time we have over used all our limited resources that may well be the fate if those who are left.

Clownfish. Whether you or I like it or not, the final solution will be provided by Mother Nature as per above, and the population is literally decimated by starvation.

It has happened to other civilizations in the past, so why won't it happen again in the future while we continue to raise life expectancies in the West and fail to reduce birth rates in the developing countries.

David

Clownfish,

Please point to where I or anyone else on this forum has condoned forced abortion or claimed that China is a utopia. However, I believe in giving credit where it is due. China is undeniably an authoritarian state, and India is a democracy. They were at about the same level of development in the 1950s. Take a look at the current statistics in the CIA World Factbook:

Birth Rate: China, 14 births/1000; India, 22 births/1000

Infant Mortality: China, 20.25 deaths/1000 live births; India, 30.15 deaths/1000 live births

Male (Female) Life Expectancy: China, 71.61 (75.52) years; India, 67.46 (72.61)years

Total Fertility Rate: China, 1.79 (below replacement level); India, 2.72

Male (Female) Literacy: China, 95.1% (86.5%); India, 73.4% (47.8%)

GDP per capita (Purchasing Power Parity): China, $6,000; India, $2,900

If you want to condemn China for forced abortions and executions, you also need to praise them for the people they have obviously saved. Civil and political rights mean nothing without basic economic and social rights. If you had to be a working class person in either China or India, which would you pick? Be honest.

VK (David)
I suspect you may be right. It is a shame that human beings have to wait for disaster to occur (the man-made kind) before they do anything about it.

As far as I can make out many of the populate or perish advocates are property developers or those of the economic growth (unfettered) crowd. (If tonight's television is any indication)

It is bewildering that sustainability has become such a controversial idea when it's roots lie very much in humanism and compassion.

John Reid – Thanks for taking part in the forum. As stated earlier too few authors do this. Here is hoping that you get back on the forum and discuss some of the issues in your article.

Regarding your article, although I agree in general with the theme, I agree with clownfish in his point that when you say that the earth's population should be reduced by two thirds, my first thought is “Well then how can we make that happen?” You say in your post to the forum that you don’t want to see anybody killed, you just want to see 80 million less babies be born over the next 50 years. Again, my first thought is “How is that going to happen?”

If you are really serious about pushing change you can't just leave the calculator in your drawer and say, "well we will just have 80 million less births." Nothing like that has ever happened and there is no reason to think that it is going to happen.

I think an incredibly optimistic goal would be to have 8.2 billion in 2050 instead of 9.2 billion. That would also probably mean a billion less people living in poverty in 2050. That would take the developed world actively saying that we want to pursue sustainble policies of all sorts such as net zero immigration, dumping the baby bonus, increasing renewable energy use, etc. We are currently racing the wrong way in Australia and America, and the developing world is using more and more resources and will continue to, so I'm keen to hear how you think it might happen.

Maybe the goal of your article was to say, "this is really important but I don't know how to get there." If so how do you get the electorate to believe it is really important? At the moment both parties want massive increases in population and there is little public opposition except for lonely Kelvin Thomson. Well one is better than zero. Thank God for Kelvin.

Yabby: "I am for giving them all (women) that choice". As am I. However the difference is that I am for giving all people a choice, not foisting a green dictatorship that smugly assumes it knows best on them.

I note you use the typical environmentalist's trick of employing carefully winnowed data to try and argue your case; in this instance, using some of the poorest areas on Earth to claim that voluntary family planning has failed. I somehow think that the average Somalian has higher priorities than trying to scrounge up a box of frangers.

But you're deliberately avoiding my point: even if we attained the admirable goal of all women in the world having equal and free choice in reproduction, it still would not meet the "absolute priority" set out in this article. Hence my concern, not so much with what is said, but what is being - deliberately or not - unsaid: be sure that when the dog-whistle is blown, someone less scrupulous or principled than you or I will sit up and bark.

"Ergo": "(A) Latin word meaning 'therefore'; usually used to show a logical conclusion". You argue, in a forum discussing an article that claims that human overpopulation is an imminent threat to all other life on the planet and that people in the developing world are having too many babies; you further argue that sending them food aid only causes them to have more babies. Sending them "modern family planning methods" would seem to be a waste of time, as you also argue that cultural and religious prejudices prevent people in the developing world using contraception. It would be logical, therefore, to conclude that we should forego sending food aid to developing countries.

I agree, pelican, that we can have a rational discussion about population sustainability; but only if antipopulationists refrain from making hysterical claims about The Very Future Of Life On Earth.

cont. ...

cont. ...

VK3AUU, as much as it pains me to be pedantic ;), even decimation of the world's population won't be enough to satisfy John Reid's "absolute priority": he wants the world's human population reduce by some 70%, not a measly 10%.

Divergence, there have been several posts in Online Opinion which have either directly advocated a Chinese-style One-Child policy or quoted approvingly politicians like Sandra Kanck, who have done so. A One-Child policy, ipso facto, necessitates enforced abortion. Others have pointed approvingly to China's "success". All of which conveniently ignores the fact that China's one-child policy was essentially a draconian knee-jerk policy to cover the heinous failures of the Communist dictatorship's agricultural policies.

"If you want to condemn China for forced abortions and executions, you also need to praise them for the people they have obviously saved."

Should I also praise Adolf Hitler for improving the lot of many, many German people in the 1930s? I prefer not to indulge in such amoral relativism. Wrong is wrong is wrong.

Clownfish, I suggest you go back to the dictionary and find out the meaning of the word "decimation", but to save you the bother I will explain.

It actually means "reducing to one tenth of the original"

One wonders what is your solution to the problem of overpopulation seeing that you have rejected all the suggestions of your socalled anti-populationists?

David

*As am I. However the difference is that I am for giving all people a choice, not foisting a green dictatorship that smugly assumes it knows best on them.*

Well that's great Clownly. In that case I wish you would speak up,
when it comes to the rights of third world women, to have legal access
to family planning. So far hardly a peeps from you, just lots of
paranoia about green dictatorships.

*in this instance, using some of the poorest areas on Earth to claim that voluntary family planning has failed*

They simply mostly don't use family planning, no wonder they are
poor. If you had 10 children to feed, how would you cope? Without
cushy Australian family payments? My point is we should provide them
with family planning, which they can choose to use or not. All the
info shows that third world women want to use it, but don't have
the luxury of choice, as you do.

*But you're deliberately avoiding my point*

I'm not deliberately avoiding your point, I'm make a better one.
Fact is we know that when given the choice, women will have alot
less children. If all women had the choice that Western women have,
we would not have a population problem. That is a frigging good
point, think about it!

*as you also argue that cultural and religious prejudices prevent people in the developing world using contraception*

Not at all. My argument is that religious nuts from the West,
who control the money supply and influence politics globally,
prevent third world women from making their own choices.

George Bush, who controlled billions of $, told them to cross their
legs for Jesus. The pope tells them to burn condoms. Catholics
have a huge say in third world politics, as well as running many
hospitals. So if a woman in say the Philipines, wants the
snip after 8 kids, a Catholic hospital won't do it for her, its
against the popes beliefs. It stinks.

Er, Clownfish - Yabby may be many things, but he's certainly no lefty environmentalist greenie.

Indeed, that description probably applies more to me, but I'm not anywhere near as extreme about population as are these disingenuous, misanthropic frootloops.

Divergence: "On Iran's success in bringing down fertility rates ..."

A very heartening link. Thanks.

Clownfish,

I am in Europe right now. This story is one the first I saw on arriving: http://ionglobaltrends.blogspot.com/2009/09/iraq-iraq-accuses-turkey-syria-and-iran.html I see it hasn't got much press in Australia, but if this drought continues people in Syria and Iraq will start dying. What is interesting about this isn't so much the drought, but rather the dams Turkey and Iran have built to reduce its impact, at the expense of the countries downstream.

CJ Morgan: start babbling on about "Gaia"

If life on this planet viewed as a game of chess between species, then Gaia is the name I gave the rules by which the game is played. I wasn't ascribing any magical properties to them, and I highly doubt Ludwig was either. These rules have been around for an eternity. Our species is but an insignificant blip at the end of that eternity.

CJ Morgan: has no chance whatsoever of being addressed

The point of the discussion between Ludwig and myself the rules of Gaia mean there is no way to address it. Whatever proposals you might have in mind can only work for a few generations at most.

Think of you and yours as pictures. Each generation we make a new photocopy and throw away the old, the catch being random errors are introduced in each new copy. Under natural selection, we make 10 copies, let the 4 horsemen reap all but the best - and perhaps end up with something better than the original. What you all others propose here is replacement rate, meaning we take only one copy. Thus we avoid the 4 horsemen for now, only to see our images reduced to mush over time by those random variations.

Ludwig and I were discussing was the impetuosity of Reid attributing these rules of Gaia to mankind, a defect in our character that must we must fix. The only place they have ever been in the history of our planet is in works we call science fiction.

VK3AUU, nothing makes my day more than being told to "go back to the dictionary" by some fool who is confidently and utterly wrong. "Decimation" does NOT mean "reducing to one tenth of the original". It means "reducing BY one tenth of the original"; the term is derived from the Roman practice of randomly selecting every tenth person for execution: a form of collective punishment.

Mirth aside ... what is my solution? As I have stated clearly on other anti-population threads, I advocate assisting developing nations to become prosperous, well-educated liberal democracies: history clearly shows that it's the best -and certainly most humane - method of reducing birth rates.

Yabby, not so much "paranoia about green dictatorships" as urging people pushing the anti-population barrow to think clearly about what they are saying, and acknowledge the dreadful implications of their arguments. If you're adamant that the human population must be reduced by 60-70% in the next 50 years, then the arithmetic is deadly and unavoidable.

This has been my whole point all along, but with the exception of ericc the antihumanists seem determined to leave their calculators, not to mention their brains, gathering dust in the drawer.

"religious nuts from the West"? Not their home-grown religious nuts? The mullahs were quite happy to jump into bed with the Bible-thumpers when it came to blocking family planning. But yes, religious nuts from the West, especially the Gaia worshippers are a thorn in the side of the developing world; they'll even lie to convince starving African countries to reject food aid, to advance their agenda.

So no, I have no truck with religious nutcases, whether they worship Jayzuz, Allah or Gaia; they all live the lie of "don't do as I do, do as I say".

To conclude: I'm all for putting the brakes on population growth, which by and large we have been successfully doing for the last 40 years. It's the means, not the end that I disagree about. I just want the miserable, misanthropic radical anti-populationists to stop and think for a moment about where their rhetoric is leading.

VK3AUU, actually Clownfish has it right.
The word 'decimation' comes from the Roman practice of punishment in the legions. A unit selected for punishment would be divided into groups of ten. The ten would draw lots, and the loser would be stoned or clubbed to death by the other nine.
Decimated = 1 in every 10 dies.
I think just about everyone here agrees that the Earth is overpopulated by Humans (and probably cattle and sheep). I don't believe anyone is advocating war or designer plague to rectify the situation, so perhaps the only remaining argument is whether or not China's one child policy is 'draconian' or not. (remember, I advocate addressing poverty, and population will very soon fix itself).
Imagine if I could indulge in a dream I have often had, and create a Utopia on a small island. Clearly agricultural and residential space would be strictly limited as would all resources. If we had no boats (or we simply didn't want to be 'imperialists'), we would have no choice but to restrict our population; and clearly the most humane way of doing that is ensuring that too many people aren't born in the first place.
It's well past time we worked out the whole bloody planet is just one big island.

Believe it or not, it took me more than 6 minutes and 11 seconds to write that.
buggar.

Clownfish, I am glad I made your day.
However, as it turns out we are actually both right.
The original usage of the term was as you have stated. Modern useage is generally along the lines of the following, according to Encarta.

"The popular meaning of decimate, "to destroy," now predominates because the need for a word meaning "to kill one person in ten" has greatly diminished. Even so, the popular meaning is not accepted by everyone, and it is often better to use annihilate, exterminate, destroy, or devastate."

We shall have to agree to disagree.

*I advocate assisting developing nations to become prosperous, well-educated liberal democracies: history clearly shows that it's the best -and certainly most humane - method of reducing birth rates.*

Well that is wonderful Clowny, give it a few hundred years and you
might get there, if the system does not collapse first from too many
people. Fact is that we know that family planning works quite well,
even in poor countries, if women are given a choice.

Women in the West stopped having all those babies, when the pill
became available. In countries where it was banned, like Ireland,
it was smuggled in by the boatload!

Fact is that we could address the population issue now, not in
hundreds of years, if we chose to.

*The mullahs were quite happy to jump into bed with the Bible-thumpers when it came to blocking family planning.*

Big difference, Islam has no centralised power structure, as does
the Catholic Church. So the Mullah down the road may totally
disagree in his interpretation and implementation. In fact in
a number of countries like Iran, Bangaladesh etc, we are seeing
alot of effort put into family planning, as they understand the
threat of overpopulation. It affects them daily.

The problem with the Catholics is that they claim the pope is
infallible, so can't go back on what another pope said, without
severe embarrssment. So they plod on with their spin regardless,
never mind the human misery that they are guilty of, due to their
belief. Suffering is seemingly noble, the real keen ones like
Opus Dei, even whip themselves!

Hundreds of millions of women in the third world suffer because
of the pope. No mullah has that kind of power or authority.

Fact is that lets say women only had the kids they wanted and
as a result in 50 years, the global population fell to 3 billion.
In human sustainability terms that would certainly be a good
thing, not a bad thing.

Nice try VK3AUU, but you specifically said "reducing to one tenth of the original". Not even allowing a bastardised meaning of the word lets you off the hook. I did warn you that I was going to be pedantic ;)

Ah, so it's all the wicked Catholics fault, Yabby? "Conservative Islamic leaders (who) have openly campaigned against the use of condoms or other birth control methods, thus making population planning in many countries ineffective" (BBC), have nothing to do with it?

Well, we seem to agree that allowing people reproductive choice is the key, you just seem to think that throwing millions of boxes of pills and condoms at the developing world will work some miraculous magic trick. I'd much prefer to see the developing world become educated, prosperous and free, and the rest will follow; no Paternalism needed.

But why would it take hundreds of years? When were Women's Lib and the Pill introduced into Western countries?

*Ah, so it's all the wicked Catholics fault, Yabby?*

No Clownly not all, nobody claimed that. Fact remains that
no organisation on the planet has done more to stop women
using modern contraception, then the Vatican.

BBC Panorama have a transcript worth reading, to give
you a little background to it, on this URL

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3147672.stm

Given you lack of understanding of the topic, it would
pay you to read it.

*you just seem to think that throwing millions of boxes of pills and condoms at the developing world will work some miraculous magic trick.*

That is not how its done Clowny, but then clearly you don't know
much about the subject. Before George Bush shut them down, there
were a whole lot of family planning clinics in many parts of the
third world, where women could go for information and supplies.

That might be a norplant, which lasts a few years, or whatever.
Women need good advice and education, these clinics can also
do the snip for men etc. Lots of those in the third world,
would be comparitevely cheap and give women a choice.