“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.