"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?