<< 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.