*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.