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.