I think it will soon be apparent that with 6.8 bn people the world already has more than enough people for fair sharing of resources. The middle classes are already losing their homes and their disposable income. Those below them want to mobilise up. As we speak China and India are blaming the West for the lion's share of climate change. Perhaps what they really mean is that the West should volunteer for lower living standards so their own rural poor can take up the slack. I suggest they are doomed to stay poor as there will never be enough resources.

If you want to ban coal fired power stations or desalination plants and have renewable energy supply then we must forego a huge amount of retail consumption and make massive investments instead. There is no point then going backwards as population increases. I also suggest that we train urban youths to work on big projects like Gorgon and not import workers who then want to stay on with their families.

I don't like the sound of all those people moving to Tasmania. Not in My Backyard! Ha.

It's another demolition job on the anti-populationists. He sounds like a rabit (rabbit?) supporter of foreign aid, which I'm not totally for.

Malcolm, congratulations on a nearly incomprehensible rant dripping with contempt and false assertions such as "The anti-pops have two aims: sterlisation programs for both males and females, starting with the most populous countries in Asia and tying carbon production with family birth numbers in Australia". What your "contribution" lacks is any comprehension that the limits imposed by Nature are, actually, inescapable. About the only "fact" you present is actually false - the rate of world population growth has now stopped decreasing and we are seeing a linear increase of 79 million people per year. There is no longer any levelling off in sight:

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6262

At Australia's current growth rate its population would double in 37 years. (BTW that is a mathematical fact.) The "projections" from the Australian Bureau of Statistics have previously been wrong and the current projection of a decreased rate of growth in future are not based on any government policy - someone at ABS just decided it will probably happen.

I guess the reason you do not use facts to support your slanderous assertions about those concerned with population growth is that the facts all point the other way.

From your bio you are supposed to be a professional writer and your piece sounds like the shrill and desperate recent statements coming out of the Property Council trying to dismiss population growth fears. Are you writing for them also?

A possible explanation as to why we as a species altogether deem it necessary to reproduce ourselves endlessly.

"Basically, the human race is yet functioning within the realm of the threatened existence of beings who are eaten by other beings. We stressfully and chronically continue to animate the urge to reproduce, because we feel that everybody is in danger of being eaten. We feel, bodily, that everyone is prey to someone else. in fact, we continually witness the drama of hunter and prey all over the world. Listen to the daily news! People are being killed all over the Earth every day---simply murdered in weird personal and social or political conflicts. Such a dreadful circumstance is a natural part of the unevolved and lower state of Man.

We are threatened, is the message of the news.It reminds us of our chronic situation. We teach each other and we pass on to our children all the tecniques for living as a stressful personality.

Everybody asks, "Why are we doing this?". We could just as easily change our circumstance. Why dont we just change them then? It is because the threatened animal still lives in our hormones. Our bodily chemistry is yet stimulating us to live like the vital-elemental creature. Thus, we MUST have conflicts and opponents. We must eat and be devoured ourselves."

And the solution!

To create a human sanctuary for higher adaptation and the ultimate transcendence of Man is the true urge, even the primal human urge. We inherently desire a human scale and natural environment in which we can live without the chronic production of stress chemistry. We want to be cured at the heart and thereby be transformed bodily. And we know, deeply, psychically, that we cannot realize that transformation until we can create a culture in which people can live without degenerative stress. Thus, sanctuary, or spiritual community, is the motive in Man that contains the genetic secret of the next stage in human evolution.

We do not live a life of love and blissfulness and peace and harmony, in which the basic requirements of ordinary physical and social life are mutually granted. We must thus find ways to overcome the stresses of our lower unevolved adaptation, to transform the chemistry of the body-mind literally, so that we can live a daily life without personal, social, cultural, and chemical stress. Such a life is not possible for a group of people until they manage to create sanctuary with one another---a mutually protected, stable, basically unthreatened way of life.

“While the Sustainable Population Lobby and their Trotskyist and Luddite followers are few in number, their racist propaganda has found considerable sympathy in middle Australia.”

I am not sure I would describe the notion that those who see excessive human population numbers as the root cause of issues of avoidable pollution and resource sustainability for the human race, as “Malthusian”.

Certainly I do not consider myself “Trotskyish”, in the least. The notion of perpetual revolution and the inevitable social turmoil and pointless hardship leaves me feeling quite chilled.

It is not “Luddite” to garner the attributes of new “population management drugs” or techniques, still to be invented.

Indeed, the “Luddite” view would be to destroy the laboratories capable of developing such chemicals.

So, now we are past the name calling, lets look at the practicalities

If we accept that “resource depletion” and “pollution” are not “good ideas”

What should we do about it, bearing in mind every environmental nazi tells me (and I do actually agree) we have a duty to maintain the planet ?

Increase the population of the world to pollute and degrade at an even more rapid rate than before

or

rely on the innovation and inventions of the first world to produce new solutions to resource recycling, energy needs and food supply?

Or

Attempt to limit human numbers?

Whilst I am an optimist (something which Malthusians Trotskyites and Luddites never were), I do see a real issue in resolving the imbalance caused by the innovations in medical research and products of previous generations, to improve child mortality rates and extend general life expectancy.

When you reduce child mortality rates and extend life expectancies but do nothing else:

“population explosion” is what you get, regardless of its desirability or sustainability.

Regarding “greens”

I do not consider myself to be a “greenie” either emotionally or politically,

We should work to fix the causes of

Deforestation
Fish stock depletion
Resource depletion
Pollution
Environmental degradation

and if that means –

Limit/Reduce world population numbers

then we should do it!

I await Ludwig’s view

“They want to turn capitalism back to the 1700s and reduce Australia’s population to 7 million by 2050. Aren’t you glad you were born now rather than not being born in 20 years time?”

Capitalism is doing fine, and will not be turned “back to the 1700’s”.

I’m a capitalist – not a rich one, but one who believes that it’s the only system that works – but I abhor the attitude of big business to immigration: they want it just to expand their markets, and they have no interest at all in the social costs that come from high immigration and high populations; particularly in Australia where there is massive cultural incompatibility in our immigration system, and where citizenship is a matter of convenience rather than something to be valued.

And, what about the successful, happy capitalist countries around the world with populations smaller than ours. They are not constantly looking to expand their numbers, but they enjoy a standard of living as good as, if not better than ours.

As for the over-populated Third World, the meddling NGO’s and developed world governments have poured billions of dollars into them over many years with absolutely no benefit at all. The big breeders are still dying by the thousands, as they always will be.

Why the hell would people in these countries want to liver longer, when even King is only ‘hopeful’ that they will be happier it they do? It hasn’t happened yet, despite all the efforts made, and there is not indication that it ever will.

Anyway, the people King is bashing – Greens and intellectuals with websites - hardly say boo these days. You never hear Brown and cronies saying anything about population at all, and the white-beards in the ‘clubs’ devoted to population control are disorganised and ineffectual; nobody listens to them.

So, King doesn’t need to worry about the human race getting smaller. We have big population politicians, driven by big business and, no matter what we think of populationssizes, we are all going to suffer as they grow

Well, that was an illogical rant, if I have ever read one, full of false accusations and bitter name calling. Certainly not the way to get the readers on your side.

Lets have a look at some of the "facts". The sun certainly provides us with a lot of "free" energy and we can do a lot more towards harnessing it for our daily use and it comes from outside our "box". On the other hand, all the other resources which we consume daily come from within the box and, apart from the water which falls from the sky and is then returned to the system, all the rest are dug up from the ground and when they are used, only a fraction are available for recycling and hence are gone forever. I might point out that this also includes the water from glaciers in Asia and the Great Artesian Basin at home. The more of us there are, the quicker the depletion of these resources.

Now let us look at the impoverished third world countries. It is certainly good that we do something to improve their miserable lot, and at present we don't seem to be making much of a dint in it. However, over a longer period of time, significant improvements will be made to the living standards of these countries and the relatively small impact that they currently have on the resources of the planet will increase markedly and those who think their impact is small, will have to change their tune. We cannot continue to sustain even the current population at what should be considered as desireable standards of living. What, pray tell, is your solution to the problem.

David

What a rambling, logically incoherent tirade. If Malcolm King is really a professional writer, perhaps he should refrain from publishing rubbish like this that he's obviously written while in his cups.

It's annoying that if this guy wrote this story while zonked, he has now written three opeds which have carved the anti-pops up and made them look like a disorganised rabble.

I'm just a simple soul but it appears that he is revelling in the fact that the anti-pops (a cute name) have no consistent policy and in fact pose a danger to the environmental movement.

Cultural revolution = dancing and dim sims! He's taking the piss in more ways than one...

I was interested in Col Rouge's comment. It would be good to debate how policy on population reduction could be implemented, beyond reducing the baby bonus and erecting a Fortress Australia mentality.

Not wanting to appear like an echo, but 'rant' is definitely the only word that comes to mind here. If we're in any doubt as to the author's objectivity those fears are soon confirmed, when he scathingly dismisses legitimately concerned scientists, writers and academics the world over as Trotskyists, Luddites and racists, and all in one sentence.

Over population is just one in a number of indicators we need to be concerned about and people who obsess over it to the exclusion of all else are I agree failing to appreciate the big picture. But in my experience, most people concerned about over population are also concerned at over consumption. Where are all these rabid single-minded 'anti-pops'? I read widely and I haven't encountered any that come to mind.

michael_in_adelaide

Excellent post. Interesting stats about the non-levelling off of population projections. Are you in a position to write a countering article? I'm sure it would be a good read if you were. :)

Col Rouge

Notwithstanding its reference to 'environmental nazis', I appreciated your calm and logical post. Yes, praise from me will be the last thing you want, I know. :)

<< I await Ludwig’s view. >>

So do I. I look forward to a flurry of exclamation marks and superlatives. :)

It’s disappointing that Online Opinion lets this kind of rant get through. If this guy is a media adviser and professional writer he hasn’t expended much effort on this disjointed series of statements.

The central themes are name-calling and “the anti-pops think this,” without any back-up. I thought the Online Opinion editors had a counter for name-calling and when you got past about 5 they threw your article in the bin. I guess not.

The "anti-pops think this" nonsense is as pathetic as the lefties at university in the 70’s who proved that capitalism was evil by finding the most unethical thing a businessman ever did and then attributing that kind of behaviour to everybody who supports free markets.

Most proponents of stable population in Australia want net zero immigration for Australia and discontinuing the baby bonus. Malcolm didn’t choose to discuss either of these ideas. Neither does he consider the short list of environmental problems that Col Rouge made.

Here is another visual reference. If 6.7 billion people were on Tasmania, about 99.9% would be dead at the end of the week. Anti-pops know it takes more than a piece of land to live. Apparently Malcolm Kings doesn't.

There are several arguments that can be made about advocates of population stabilisation, as was done by Farida Akhter yesterday and Jacob Varghese on 16 November. None of these arguments were very compelling, but at least the articles were well organised. This article doesn’t include anything remotely like a cogent argument. It is just a series of statements, most of them unrelated to the previous statement.

Certainly Online Opinion can do better than this.

<< I await Ludwig’s response >>

Aww gee, it’s nice to feel wanted. Thanks Col and Bronny (:>)

As just about the most prolific ‘populationist’ on this forum, I’d like to say thanks to Malcolm King.

In this article he does the population-stabilisation and sustainability cause a great deal of good, by making himself as one in opposition, and hence the whole opposition argument, appear to be completely and utterly loopy!!

Now, if he’d just written a sensible article, instead of resorting to absolute end-of-the-spectrum stuff in every point that he makes, copious slandering and absurd statements like; << The anti-pops and their knuckle dragging followers…. >>, he might have had an inkling of credibility.

As it is, there is absolutely no point in refuting any of his rubbish, because it is, well…just complete garbage. It is much more sensible and time-efficient to just denounce the whole mindless article.

There are plenty of sensible population-related articles on both sides of the debate on this forum. No need to spend time on total trash.

----
<< What a rambling, logically incoherent tirade >>

Yes CJ, to put it mildly!!

---
<< It’s disappointing that Online Opinion lets this kind of rant get through. >>

Ericc, I’m pleased that OLO has published this article. I think that if there are people out there that are willing to write stuff like this and present it either as a tongue-in-cheek article or a genuine point of view, which poor old Malcolm seems to have done here, then I reckon it should be printed.

Thanks again Malcolm.

I must admit a quandary on this article, I'm not sure if it's pure prejudice on a crack binge or shatire (past participle, colloquial for appalling satire).

I do agree with Ludwig that the topic should be discussed (note the word discussed). Not that my opinion amounts to much worth but I wonder why the editorial staff posted this rant. I for one would like to read *reasoned* articles (both sides) on the topic.

Either way, this conglomerations of ad hominems and irrational assumptions/assertions certainly doesn't qualify, it substantially says nothing worth while on either AGW or the populations debate.

Now,now everybody. Let us not be too nasty to poor Malcolm. I'm sure that he is a jolly nice chap who, unfortunately, is not familiar with the exponential function.

Of course OLO was right in putting the article on, better out than in, and anyway the author gets full marks for courage because he must have known that he would cop a bit of a hiding.

eyejaw,

I think you missed what most people were saying. Let's have a discussion even an article against pop control. My view and I think others, is that this is a poor discussion point starter.
A bit like trying to start a conversation from a Tourette's outburst.
The article is rubbish.

As soon as the author can for example, explain Scientifically how the *solar wind* introduces (brings from space), more clean water, coal, new soil,removes pollution and not just indirect factor changing what is already there, then I'll listen.

I never though I would hear the film "Soylent Green" mentioned twice in one day. There must be something in the air.

What am I? A bacteriologist. Long time ago I was introduced to a universal growth and decline curve for ANY living system. For those of you who have not yet grasped the importance of the exponential function, I suggest you do some home work.

Looks we are still on the growth side of the human population curve ( that's exponential). Normally those curves flatten out and then go into decline.

I think most of us have started to realise that there are too many of us on the planet and that we have no obvious way of reducing the population. Nature may well take control, as it does in all living systems eventually. This could be flooding and mass deaths due to drowning, it could be a previously unknown virus e.g. Ebola etc that decimates.

The thought is horrible I know, but if we pursue our present path, nature will take over. Count on it.

I have read the article and some of the comments. They concentrate on past decisions made by people and what they may make in the future. The reality is that people have devised the means to use limited natural capital to build and operate the systems of our civilization. People have made the decisions and natural forces have done the work, using up the limited natural capital. As the result of this mismanagement of natural capital, we now have a system committed to using the remainder at a high rate. Rhetoric and political decisions can, at best, lead to a wiser use of the remaining natural capital.

The author claims to write for a living. Let's hope that nobody
paid him for this bit of nonsense.

I know of nobody who is promoting forced sterilisation, but plenty
of people who support the concept of good old family planning,
so I'm not sure who the targets are.

The author, along with Cheryl and a few others, does not seem to
grasp the basics of biology, so let me try and explain with an
example.

Fishing has been a great resource for humans since the year dot,
but due to limited population and limited techology, it was sustainable. We took the surplus, easily caught.

Times have changed. More and more people, more and more technology,
means that oceans are being plundered like never before, so
its absolutatly unsustainable. The result is that the population
of certain species have collapsed, others are on the verge of
collapse.

Short term, humans solve the problem by plundering another species,
but eventually the crap hits the fan, for there are limited fish
species to plunder and exploit.

If we look at say the bluefin tuna, Japan, a claimed intelligent
nation, was seemingly cheating for years and years, when it came
to trying to preserve the species. The "tragedy of the commons"
comes to mind.

Now its about to bite them in the arse.

http://www.news.com.au/weird-true-freaky/sumo-sized-jellyfish-throwing-japans-fishing-industry-into-chaos/story-e6frflri-1225806901682

Suddenly Japanese waters are infested with enormous numbers of
gigantic jellyfish! Everyone shakes their head and blames climate
change etc.

Fact is that all those tuna and other fish species used to eat
baby jellyfish, but if you clean out the oceans, jellyfish will of course thrive.

Clearly humans are not as smart as the author thinks. We may be
good an plundering, but we arn't much good at living sustainably

Some soft centre lefty comments here and some shoot the messenger stuff. Typical of marshmellow urban types who have no idea about contructing realistic policies on population - policies that won't see them killed by those they call 'the ignorant middle class'.

One of the good things about OLO is that it 'outs' the fringe dwelling cranks and their anti-population ideas. It's a shame that the conservative forces in politics mine these forums for wedge issues and they have rich pickings in the comments here.

Yes, well I shan't bother reading the article but that's no reason not to have the conversation.

Again, if I may refer to a simple calculation from my experience in Indonesia, and as of when I last checked, if you take the "published" GDP of Indo and divide it by the number of people you pretty much get the minimum wage. (though lots of people clearly get paid less)

In fact, outside the money for work system you have the system of a roof over your head and three meals a day system for long hours of hard yakker.

Worse still, and especially for those of you have enjoyed hotel accomadation in Bali, you may care to know that all the staff, waiters and waitresses etc in the majority of cases actually have to pay for the priveledge of "job training" in the facility, and yes, all they get for upwards of 6 months hard yakker, after having in some cases exhausted their families life savings to get them there, is a feed and a bed and long, long hours of work.

We were in a local warung sometime ago. A bus load of Golkar members roled in for a feed post a locally held conference. By co-incidence, a local Bali girl all of 18 oddd and fresh out of high school came in exhausted and sat down with my wife and I at the last available seat and soon enough began pouring out her heart about the torrid conditions of her "employment."

My BeLoved *Bidadari ... Sri* (my wife) a vocal supporter of feminine equality quickly fired up and the previously raucous environment suddenly went deathly quiet .. with me gently pinching her under the table, and a toast followed by a local joke or two and things returned to normal. (cough)

Certainly, the pressures of excess population in conjunction with repugnant economic practice are heart breaking to say the least.

I'm sitting looking at the history of Australia.
Up until 1901 there was litte control over the population, immigration, the economy and very little regulation of business.

In 1901 Australia was the richesty country in the world.

A little over 100 years later we've managed to regress to the point of being 15th richest country in the world.

Government has done this to us.

It started with the White Australia policy, as well as, having the luddites wanting to protect us from free trade.

Those protectionist policies ran us into the ground.

In the last couple of generations Australia started to reject that type of govenance and we've boomed.

Not only that but the opening up to multi-culturalism has lead to a great diversity and a sometimes great ambivalence to acceptance of difference within our community.

Altogether though the community has tended to acceptance and embracing greater openness and managed change.

The green movement in Australia is the rearguard rump of those who'd seek to keep Australia poor.

I say openness with greater immigration, less intrusiveness in governance and a rejection of norms being foistered onto us by foreign entities and organisations would see us expand and grow as we'd develop those things we'd need to ensure environmental security and maintenance of a higher standard of living.

Anti-pops is only one element of the greens and their backward striding co-reactionists in the Labor Party, who are desperately hanging onto past values.

You're so precious Col, seems we're getting through :)

Now, how about YOU proffering an answer to YOUR own question.

Or is that asking too much?

I for one am grateful to King for this article. I don't believe I can ever remember so many antagonists agreeing with each other as in this post.
I have gone on record on many occasions with my belief that the best solution to over population is prosperity, and resultant education. I have put forward my belief that simple household economics plays a vital role, in that when children become a cost (through compulsory education) rather than an asset (cheap labour), families have fewer children.
What disturbs me most is the recent trend to actually encourage people to have more babies for the sake of the economy. Costello's blatantly stupid policy to pay people to have children is a slap in the face to all countries battling overpopulation.
Having a third child 'for the country'? To support our aging population? Presumably all these 'third children' will cooperatively jump off a cliff when they hit forty, so they in turn don't become part of the problem.
History has demonstrated time and again, when it comes down to ecology or economy, economy wins every time. If we continue to pursue growth economics, populations must continue to grow, until we run out of resources.
Currently, humanity is demonstrating about as much intelligence as yeast, which effectively eats sugar and defecates alcohol; and continues to grow and expand until it is killed by it's own waste product.

Malcolm, the prize for barrenness of modern intellectual thought has to go to this article. It's so bad I suspected satire, but there was no clever twist, just the argument that we live in a world without limits - except for misguided people who do see limits. If only they would stop insisting that world population is edging up against the limits of the world to support them the rosy future would bring endless growth.

Since the main tools that have extended those limits, (that really do exist) are widespread use of fossil fuels and those are being shown to have long term consequences and costs, the limitless growth you espouse looks more like living it up on credit you have no intention of repaying.

Ken said "It's so bad I suspected satire, but there was no clever twist"
I was thinking the exact same thing- its stereotypes are so excruciatingly vulgar, inaccurate, false and silly I was thinking of the Firth Factor- only Firth is always JOKING and I'm becoming convinced Malcolm isn't (or more specifically, he wants his audience to take it seriously). What frightens me is even Bill O Reilly doesn't make such alarming accusations about a (made-up) 'group'- yet there is somebody out there that is actually PAYING Malcolm to make this rubbish!
What's even more frightening is that this included the Labor Party and the Democrats!

I don't think I'll even bother with this one- it's just so stupid. The term 'anti-pop' -ie absolutely anyone that thinks population increase can be harmful- and therefore secretly wants nazi-style sterilization- blah- I won't even bother entertaining his rubbish.

But the main reason is, despite these pages and many across the net being completely inundated with helpful comments that DO explain and suggest attitudes and policies for population control that contradict what he, along with other nutters like Cheryl keep insisting we do- and furthermore a complete absence of any statements that DO fit into their crazy viewpoints, they keep falling on deaf ears- although as Ludwig said, they end up making themselves look bad on their own.

Keep up the good work guys!

Yes not much more needs to be said.

The best way to stifle argument about population sustainability is to mention Malthus, Nazism and other anti-human terminology and absolve yourself of the need for intelligent and meaningful debate.

I have not seen one person on this forum or elsewhere offer any anti-human solutions in the sustainable population debate other than those who have a religious fervour in maintaining unfettered population growth - despite diminishing arable land, water, resources and deforestation for urban development.

I know that I will get heaps of scorn for saying this but at the end of the day, it looks like Thomas Malthus might have known what he was talking about.

David

Yes, it seems unanimous - and across political leanings. This article's a crock.

Cheryl - you and your growthist cohorts need to find a much more credible mouthpiece. Or at least a sober one.

Senator Penny Wong has said the big problems in the talks were the targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions, how to verify that countries made good on their climate promises, and how to finance poorer countries to tackle global warming. (Well, we all knew that before the talks started) Ms Hand though, Australia’s Official Person, in her speech, also drew attention to the problem in deciding what legal form a new climate deal should take – a hot topic which relates to the future of the Kyoto protocol.”

Well, nice try…to get Nations together again after Geneva and the war to end all wars in 1918, then the U.N.after another war to end all wars in 1945 but history has clearly shown that there is no such thing as obtuse Nations doing anything together for the common good least of all in good faith. More so when rising population with rising affluence become consumers of manufactured goods from polluting processes. The U.N. says another 2.9 billion by 2040, an increase of one third. One third, Penny Wong, one third. Therein lies the problem of trying to create a new World Order.

If the causes of climate change, are indeed man made, then the answer is unclear and requires the sacrifice of vested interests. Legislating the ETS is Australia’s example, but if it is the forever changing elliptical orbit of the Earth around the Sun , according to Josh my 12 year old, then the answer is clear..adapt to it as all other life on Earth has adapted. But the melting of the Ice Caps raising the sea levels before they begin to freeze again create a problem for some of the Pacific Nations and the Mayor of Glenelg. This is the area to prepare for a different future on higher ground….. in rented space for as long as it takes?. In the meantime it appears that Copenhagen is all about money.

I can't remember when an article caused normally sane people to run in circles, scream and shout. We have people accusing the author of being drunk, mad, Catholic, not understanding exponential functions, and even one poster coming out in favour of Malthuse - who got the maths wrong and has since been discredited beyond recall.

Many of the poorer nations recently walked out of Copenhagen, I suggest because of the type of incredible white Anglo comments here. You want to cut both consumption and population but you believe in capitalism. Try again.

You want to cut population but have no policies on how to do it. You're talking about cutting population but not mentioning contraceptives or what you'd do if people, such as a nation, said, 'no way.' Hmmm. The only exponential function I can see here is spluttering ignorance because King has trampled over your intellectual weed garden. Welcome to the real world.

You'd have to be a dyed-in-the-wool growthist to find any redeeming features in King's woeful article. Either that or mad, drunk or Catholic.

"You want to cut population but have no policies on how to do it. You're talking about cutting population but not mentioning contraceptives or what you'd do if people, such as a nation, said, 'no way.' Hmmm. The only exponential function I can see here is spluttering ignorance because King has trampled over your intellectual weed garden. Welcome to the real world."

Cheryl I'm seriously beginning to doubt your ability to read, having seen this comment repeated again from you.

This may come as a big shock to you, but there are NO proposals to cut population simply because so far only one "anti-pop" person has actually suggested it- out of dozens who instead advocated stuff like:
-encouraging contraceptives and increasing world-wide availability (which, we mentioned on like, every single one of these threads)
-legalizing and removing obstacles (including stigma) for an abortion to those who choose them
-Cutting baby bonuses
-Reassessing economic/workforce/pension system policy that does not require continuous population increase
-For countries that do not comply with the above (or have too many people), alter VISA requirements/access to our own countries, as well as extent of aid provided.

Although I do appreciate you pretending these points don't exist and instead constantly insist a bunch you basically made up do instead- it really puts your stance into perspective for everyone else.

To King and Cheryl there is a new dimension while all the rich and poor ae squabbling over who gets paid what. Sharia Laws in some parts of the modern world provide for the submission of the female to sex as young as 9 and for a 13 year old is common enough,indeed, up to 4x13 year olds with its attendant problems of so many children to accept the existent of other humans with other beliefs and with a different intent to exist. While it is accepted that our evolution has got this far for the numbers, it is perhaps the rising affluence that increases the demand for potable water to sustain all life and since 1940, the demand for products of polluting industries. The temp at 5 a.m was 12 deg and now 39 deg here at mid day today - not from industry starting up but from the Sun.

King Hazza, you won't get an argument out of me re encouraging contraceptives, education or cutting the BB but you'll ge heaps re messing with Visa's on the grounds of measuring a person's greenhouse emissions or by how much they eat or the energy they use to keep warm.

Unfortunately here we part company as many of the comments here are simply knee jerk reactions born from a nasty socio-biology ethos that is completely devoid of humanist principles.

Some of the comments have been good but I fear many are born from a kind of psychological despair because life hasn't deal them the cards they had hoped.

Cheryl, you do have the most extraordinary imagination. Have you thought of writing fiction professionally?

Whilst I do not profess to be an expert, and whilst my experiences with poor Indonesian Muslim people is quite extensive, though perhaps not statistically significant, there are a number of valid points which I think that I can reasonabley make.

By way of qualitative interview (and yes I have worked in the market research industry) it appears that there is a unanimous awareness that conditions were better in the rural areas for earlier generations when there were less people.

As a very social people, who like to live and be surrounded by friends and family constantly, there is a strong desire to have a child or two, but thereafter, the predominate view is that "Love Making" is for pleasure and healthy stress relief.

However, in places where the income is less than $AU5 per day, the people are all too aware of the fact that there is not enough resources to go around.

However, the only contraception which is financially viable for them is the 3 to 6 month injectable variety which is known for making the girls fat and lethargic, which in some cases leads to marital infidelity and is thus undesirable for some.

Regrettably, drugs like Yasmin, known as the "Sexy Pill" here for its desirable side effects of complexion and weight control, is outside of the financial reach of the majority poorer people,whose focus is to put food on the table.

When pm Krudd came out recently indicating his desire for increased population, I do believe that most poles indicated that most Australians do not want this. Understandable really when many Australians travel to portions of the globe that have population problems and can plainly see the associated problems for themselves.

Thus, the scientific medical and Green view on this issue is clearly more indicative of the views of the majority of Australians.

And, I would add, the imbeciles in the catholic sphere, both the fake ones and otherwise, are to be condemned for their foolish ranting against contraception.

That's one of the first posts re population that has discussed Islam. While most of the post here have been almost totally devoid of an understanding of other religions or other cultural norms, Dream Ons is interesting.

I tend to think poor people are poor because they don't have resources - not because there are too many people but because they don't have the capital/education or ability to acquire more resources.

While there has been a spectacular reduction of deep poverty, the same inequities still face many in the developing world as they did 100 years ago.

Cheryl
What you say is valid in terms of the poor. It is not just the amount of people but more often the inequitable distribution of resouces, mainly food, resulting from a flawed economic system.

But, it is not just about distribution of resouces. Food is not the only resource. Trees, metals, water, energy etc are all resources and in countries like Australia and Africa, for example, water is a more precious resource than say in Ireland where it sheets down.

Growing populations encroaching on sometimes the only real arable land in a region is a concern. You can't possibly populations can keep growing continually without some point where it becomes self-destructive for a species. Usually at that point some catastrophe takes place whether it be famine, illness or war that reduces a population but why let it get to that point?

That is what the population growthists fail to get as part of the humanitarian aspect of this debate.