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?