The Gates Foundation has donated 26billion$ since it began in 2000. A very large part of this has gone towards the eradication of AIDS, which Melinda has made her main mission.

Melinda Gates is no half-hearted contributor. She is right into it, spending a lot of time in the slums of India and similar places. She is frank and unembarrassable, having no qualms about dealing forthrightly with the nitty-gritty of AIDS prevention on the personal level.

The Gates Foundation has an impressive list of issues that it is trying to deal with -
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/topics/Pages/topics-overview.aspx. It is now one of the great world forces for the betterment of quality of life for millions of people living in abject poverty across the globe.

However…..

It seems to me that something absolutely enormous is missing. There is no effort whatsoever being put towards directly addressing overpopulation, which is surely the world’s biggest issue, or at least right up there with AIDS.

Bill and Melinda Gates are free spirits. They are beholden to no government. They are not tied to the absurdity of the continuous economic growth and human expansion paradigm, that every government and company in world seems to be a slave of. They CAN address this all-important issue freely.

Sure, it is enormously difficult. It requires messing with the intimate details of peoples’ sex lives, social stigmas, religious aspects, education regimes, etc. But then, all of these things have to be addressed in the fight against AIDS...and the Gateses has shown a full willingness to do so.

So why do they have an enormous blind spot with population growth or feel that it is not worth addressing?

Ludwig

"They are not tied to the absurdity of the continuous economic growth and human expansion paradigm.."

Not so much now I guess, at least in terms of their personal well-being, but it's that paradigm that created their wealth in the first place and continues to fund their philanthropy. Not that I'm condemning what they do, but it's not without the odd interesting paradox.

I agree with all you say on population. It's a fundamentally critical problem.

And I like your creative lead-in to your favourite and well worn theme! :)

It's one of course that we absolutely need to keep hearing, so good on you, Ludwig.

I echo Bronwyn's thoughts on this too Ludwig and support your crusade for the overpopulation issue. When will man realise that our resources are finite and we not only need to learn to manage them better but to keep population sustainable.

The Gates' efforts are to be applauded but as Bronwyn mentioned the emphasis on economic growth which helped to establish and grow Microsoft was very much dependent on population growth (as well as a dodgy product with built-in obsolescence) :).

Perhaps overpopulation is in the "Too Hard Basket".
I've not gone and looked at the link of the goals but the stuff I've seen them involved in previously seem to be goals where appropriately directed resources can make a difference. Changing peoples breeding habit's directly may occupy a whole different space.

The most effective means of reduce reproduction rates in humans seems to be to create wealth and improve education, affluent educated societies have lower reproduction rates than ones where real poverty and low education levels are widespread issue's.

People who have some confidence that they can provide for their own future may not feel the need to breed so many kids in the hope that some will provide for them in their old age. People with access to appropriate technology may not need to breed so many children to help them earn their living.

R0bert

Ludwig, the Weekend Australian magazine just before Christmas
carried a story about what the Gates Foundation is doing etc.

The way I remember it, Belinda was quite aware of the problems
in Africa, where women have one kid in the belly and one on
the back.

One of the things they are developing, are microbicides in the
form of an odourless clear jelly, that a woman can use without
her partner knowing. She said they hoped they would be
available in the next seven years.

She mentioned these in terms of hiv prevention, but I would
be amazed if they also did not control sperm.

In Africa more women then men are infected with HIV and it seems
she is aware that women don't have alot of say, when it comes
to sex.

This would be a clever way to empower women to have some say
about how many kids that they want. Perhaps the website would
tell you more about these microbicides, which she seems to have
so much hope for.

No arguments from Ludwig.I totally agree.

Hi Ludwig

I imagine many third world governments are beholden to the Gates Foundation – honourably I trust!

The Gates Foundation website failed to mention that Bill Gates is heavily involved in a GM push into Africa. Frankly I’m not impressed with the company he keeps – Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont/Pioneer Hi-bred, Rockefeller, Merck etc.

Gates has invested millions in a Global Seed Vault (the “Doomsday” vault) on the remote Norwegian island of Spitsbergen. I’m intrigued and it appears that this vault has more security than Alcatraz:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

Rockefeller, Gates et al have formed the “Green Revolution” push into Africa. I trust not with the disastrous results of the Rockefeller “Green” revolution which commenced in the 40’s.

Gates has been instrumental in gifting animals to poor Africans but have deals been done with compliant African leaders on the GM issue?

“Control the oil and you control entire nations; control the food and you control the people." (Henry Kissinger)

The Gates Foundation gives away at least 5% of its worth every year, to avoid paying most taxes.

It invests the other 95% of its worth. This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates' personal fortune.

The Foundation endowment has major holdings in companies ranked among the worst U.S. and Canadian polluters, including ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical Co. and Tyco International Ltd. It appears they do not avoid investments in firms whose activities conflict with the foundation's mission to do good.

In Durban South Africa, a vaginal gel (Carraguard) is being tested on volunteers to protect against HIV. The test is funded by a generous $20-million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

However, a study found serious respiratory problems throughout the region. More than half the children aged 2 to 5 had asthma, largely attributed to sulfur dioxide and other industrial pollutants. Much of it was produced by companies in which the Gates Foundation has invested – BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo-American.

One cannot deny Gates’ contributions to humanity though his planned parenthood grants have failed miserably and an ethical investor, he’s not.

Dear Ludwig,

I agree with you that population
control should be linked with
sustainability, and a country's resources.

Don't blame Bill or Melinda Gates too much
however, they're at least doing something
through their Foundation to help the poor,
who normally don't demand or ask for resources.
Western societies were able to progress over
the last 1000 years at the expense of the
developing world.

Did you know that China is having a re-think
of its 'one-child' policy?
Perhaps China is beginning to realize that
lower population growth means aging population,
decreasing competitiveness, whereas more people
means more production, bigger markets, lower costs,
Interesting no?

Thanks for the support with the whole overpopulation thing Bronwyn and Pelican.

I’m not sure that Bill Gates fortune was made on the back of overpopulation or rapid population growth. It was made predominantly via an amazing technological advance that he just happened to be in the place at the right time to make the most of.

I don’t have much of a problem with that sort of growth. That is; economic growth from good technological advances that directly improve efficiency in communication, education and the like, and generally improve peoples’ quality of life as a result.

I’d like to see the Gates Foundation come out directly against continuous human expansionism, not just rapid population growth in already chronically overcrowded countries, but the warped ethic that economies have to be forever growing or else countries will go into recession.

I believe that Bill and Melinda could do this without feeling too hypocritical about where their wealth came from or how it continues to flow into their foundation.

Just imagine it; an organisation as huge as theirs, fundamentally questioning the entire continuous growth paradigm and pushing directly for a sustainable future ……and pouring millions of dollars into it. Now wouldn’t that be something. That would be every bit as useful as all the other things that they trying to address combined. In fact, I’ve got to ask; what’s point of addressing all the other stuff if we are just going to continue with our rush towards the cliff?

R0bert, I can’t see that the Gates Foundation would consider overpopulation to be in the too hard basket, given the enormity of some of their basic themes, not least AIDS. Changing peoples’ breeding habits is not too far away from the necessity of changing peoples’ sexual habits in order to deal with AIDS.

Yabby, I can’t see why Melinda wouldn’t be forthright about the development of spermicides if this was part of the microbicide picture.

They could so easily go together. Indeed, the whole education and empowerment of women and whole communities regarding AIDS could fit so well with the need to reduce fertility rates.

The more I think about it, the more dismay I feel that the Gate Foundation just doesn’t seem interested in addressing the latter at all.

This really is of the utmost importance, as this foundation is enormous and has the ability to profoundly affect how governments and national populations think and act about health, poverty and sustainability.

With a global population of some 6.7 billion humans, an ageing population is not relevant as has been proven in Western Australia.

While I expressed concerns to political leaders around 2001, on the shortage of apprenticeships offered by companies in Western Australia (due to the high costs to these companies) the Temporary 457 Visa has significantly resolved the problems of the resource boom in the state of WA and other states.

Temporary 457 Visa skilled tradesmen, who also bring their families to Australia, contribute to the economy of this nation. Current regulations dictate that if the skilled worker is unsatisfactory or superflous to requirement, he and his family are deported forthwith.

However, the state of the environment in WA is deplorable. Those who believe that a blue sky and pretty rivers indicate healthy eco-systems are under an illusion. WA is officially listed, globally, as one of the most threatened eco-systems on the planet.

Development, mining, agriculture and population increases are responsible for the major rivers in WA being placed on life support. Agriculture is significantly responsible for the creeping salinity which is engulfing a land mass equivalent to 19 football fields per day. Much of Australia's economy depends on its resource states.

In today's Sunday Times, GM advocate and spokesperson for the Pastoralists and Graziers Association (WA), predicted that Australia can expect an increased population to 40 million in the next decade. I sincerely trust he's talking through his hat since livestock, alien to this country, already occupy almost 60% of Australia's land mass.

Charity begins at home, I believe, and much of Australia's biodiversity is trashed. This nation will increase its population at its peril.

While the West is predominantly responsible for the pollution from the Industrial Revolution, developing countries will not heed the West's mistakes because of their massive populations.

Governments who endorse and encourage population explosions today and philanthropists who remain indifferent, will wear the lepers' bell tomorrow!

Ludwig,
In order to test your proposition I ask the following questions.
• What would be needed to get such a policy up?
If the idea didn’t bog down there on cultural/national issues.
• How would you address the moral, ethical and equity issues?
Keep in mind also that the world currently produces enough food to feed its population …the problem is distribution and the profit motivation to do so.
• Who would need to give up having children? The 3rd world?
Equity suggests the limit should be world wide. That’s not going to happen!
• How would you administer/enforce such a policy?
• What and how would be the economic consequences?
Given our world economy is built on endless growth (magic pudding concept) and exploitation of cheaper labour how would our civilization cope?
• Suppose the population could be stabilized at say 3 billion would it actually solve the world’s problems?
Keep in mind the West and the rich with 20+% of the population OVER CONSUME 80% of the resources.
Clearly it isn’t that simple nor is overpopulation the most immediate problem I would suggest it economic structure that encourages/demands as much profit as can be extracted and over consumption and to hell with everyone else.

I agree with Dicky the Gates foundation is a deeply morally flawed institution.
It is inexorably part of the system and therefore part of the problem.
Having said that there is no doubt that it’s doing a lot of good.

One should never forget that Bill is a businessman first last and always. Business by definition is about achieving goals not necessarily human good. In a recent TV program this goal orientation was emphasized. Having been the most successful (ruthless) businessman his focus is now on his legacy external justification for his life. On that program a close friend said Bill is now out to win a Nobel peace prize.
In order to win that he needs powerful friends. The corollary of that is he isn’t about to upset them or country leaders by head butting on issues that are too sensitive.

Dickie, the investment in the Doomsday Vault seed stocks and GM crops seems pretty ethical to me if we appreciate the motivation, which is no doubt to provide genetic stock to rebuild humanity’s agricultural base if do suffer catastrophe due to climate change and overpopulation, and to provide a gene bank for GM crop development. Involvement in GM is presumably motivated by the desire to quickly bring foodstocks up to par with demand and thus hopefully avoid a global crash event, which GM crops have a much better chance of doing than non-GM crops.

Sure GM has its downsides and I appreciate the view that to even engage in it at all can be seen as unethical. And sure, some of the companies that Gates is going into cohoots with leave a lot to be desired ethically. But it is still a good thing overall…much better than to not engage in any of this sort of action or financial support, I would think.

The Gates Foundation should very much be pressuring its own government, that of Australia and other developed nations to reach population stabilisation. It is indeed very hard to deal with this issue in the Third World while the West blunders on with rapid growthism.

If only Bill and Melinda could see it in their hearts to say to our little Kevvie; sport, you’re terribly off-track with your huge boost to immigration and your approach to nation-building predicated on high population growth and endless economic growth. Get you tooche into gear mate.

“Governments who endorse and encourage population explosions today and philanthropists who remain indifferent, will wear the lepers' bell tomorrow!”

Yes. Philanthropists that ignore this vital issue will not be thought of well in the end, no matter what efforts they put into other things.

Foxy, you wrote; “Don't blame Bill or Melinda Gates too much however, they're at least doing something through their Foundation to help the poor…”

I do blame them for not dealing with population growth. They’ve got the power to make such an enormous difference. And in not doing anything, they are being seen to support the continuous human expansion paradigm, which really does sit at stark odds with everything else they are trying to achieve…and their overall goal of greatly improving the lives of three quarters of the world’s people.

Sorry, but what they are doing effectively amounts to tinkering around the edges of the main problem. They are simply not going to achieve their goals if they don’t address the core sustainability issues directly.

Well that’s four posts in 24 hours. Examinator, I’ll have to wait til late tonight or tomorrow morning to address your points.

Ludwig,
Congratulations for raising this issue and it needs to be raised often to get the message through. Someday, someone will come up with, at least, a partly workable solution. I like the idea of making spermicides available to women of poor countries. That is a start.

Foxy mentioned the 'one child policy' in China! I have been told that to get past that policy, couples are now using multiple birthing techniques to have more children in the one pregnancy. As this goes against the governments idea, I wonder how long before a stop is put to that. To overcome the gender imbalance in China, I would not be surprised if polygamy was allowed so that a woman could have multiple husbands.

Our governments have been saying on many issues that we can set example for the world. We have to press them to set example on population by reducing immigration here to 'zero net'. So I for one will continue to raise the immigration issue with the polys, but there are powerful interests that keep pushing high immigration.

Dear Banjo,

We were told decades ago that Australia could
only sustain a population of 20 million, currently
its 21 million and rising. Our water and other
resources are decreasing, so you're right to
be concerned about immigration, as is Ludwig
about our population growth.

Ludwig You and I have agreed on the topic, over-population, being the biggest single threat to future sustainability and the root cause of many other maladies facing life quality, frequently in the past and we will continue to agree on it into the future.

I find considerable wisdom in Roberts suggestion “People who have some confidence that they can provide for their own future may not feel the need to breed so many kids in the hope that some will provide for them in their old age.”

And do think it is in the political “too hard basket” because it is counter-thinking to most politicians who seem to believe a larger electorate increases their personal authority.

Hence, I think that as a cause, “population reduction” is in the same mis-named basket as “smaller government” as both being extremely desirable for everyone, except those who believe in their divine right to rule us.

The label on the basket should not be

"too hard"

it should be

"of counter interest to political and central government control".

That notwithstanding, I suspect the philanthropic distributions made by the Gates and their foundation will be better assessed and of greater direct benefit to the recipients than equivalent amounts gifted by governments largely because the political shenanigans which lurk within the hearts of bureaucrats and behind the closed doors of government, will more likely be transparent with the Gates foundation plus Bill Gates has some experience in building a business and understand “accountability”, something which most politicians and their civil servant mechanics are at pain to avoid.

As for Bronwyn’s concerns for the source of the Bill Gates wealth, it is simple, he can thank IBM, they are the ones who opened the door for Microsoft, at a time when computer companies thought solely in terms of hardware and considered the software a bit of a joke. I would further suggest the IBM list of charitable beneficiaries is far slimmer a tome than Bill Gates’ list.

A bit of thought might be given to the dependence of the military on computer systems to target human beings for extermination. How much of the Gates fortune has been built on more efficiently dealing death?

That's one expensive and inhumane way of dealing with overpopulation.

David f “How much of the Gates fortune has been built on more efficiently dealing death?”

Actually, when one considers the motivating force behind the development of microprocessors in general and LVSI in particular, which is a core technology, not simply behind computers, big or small but also behind mobile telephones, the internet, email etc

and then recall the US military's search for a navigational / directional control system for cruise missiles, I think the real question to ask is

How much of the entire commercial and domestic application of modern computers, telecommunications and associated applications -

is due to the US military's resolve for a process for “more efficiently dealing death”, whilst simultaneously trying to balance the relative merits, in terms of reduced collateral damage, of pinpoint munitions targeting versus blanket bombing.

All that apart, if I were flying any aircraft (either military of Airbus as in WA recently) or in any submersible vessel or when targeting a smart bomb, I would not want “Microsoft Vista” to be the installed operating system.

A “crash” has far more significance when flying jets and sailing submarines than when dealing with personal computing issues.

Col Rouge wrote:

"How much of the entire commercial and domestic application of modern computers, telecommunications and associated applications -

is due to the US military's resolve for a process for “more efficiently dealing death”, whilst simultaneously trying to balance the relative merits, in terms of reduced collateral damage, of pinpoint munitions targeting versus blanket bombing."

That's a great question.

With the continued reliance of the US military on cluster bombing, land mines and depleted uranium I have the distinct impression that reduced collateral damage is desirable but not a priority.

I assume the US military or any other military would use more reliable systems than those in personal computers. It is the nature of the beast to hurry a new system on the market before it is well tested and then issue correcting software later. This is done to keep up market share.

Ludwig

An after thought for clarification.
The ONLY political party I have ever joined was the ‘Australia Party’ forerunner to the Dems. One of their key policies in 1969 was ZPG it was true then as now.

My comment were aimed at pointing out that THE MORE URGENT PROBLEM is our (the relatively rich’s) profligate life style. Environmental degregation et sec are sub set or caused by the lifestyle/magic pudding economic mentality.
ZPG or birth control on a grand scale must be implemented sooner than later but reality dictates it will be later. Consider the fiasco of Global Climate Change.
Secondly to point out the flaws in a businessman’s logic towards aid.
I hope this helps.
Cheer
Examinator.

*I’ve got to ask; what’s point of addressing all the other stuff if we are just going to continue with our rush towards the cliff?*

Well you know my view on that one, Ludwig. As Darwin suggested,
individuals of any given species will keep multiplying and
multiplying, until in the end it is unsustainable and the whole
lot crashes with a thud. I can't see why humans will behave
any differently, so most likely they will learn the hard way.

Today they speak of a global human population of 10 billion as
a given and few seem to care. I guess what humans will do is
just keep stealing habitat from other species in the short term.

As to the Gates Foundation, I could be wrong, but I would be
amazed if spermicidal effect will not be included in these new
products. There are many political reasons why they would not
broadcast that fact, including access to African populations.

Africa is a place of conspiracy theories and witch doctors etc.
When HIV first kicked off and people were warned to use condoms,
many claimed this was all nonsense and just a way for the white
man to try and control the population of the black man. Next
a rumour went around that if you slept with a virgin, that would
cure you. Even the South African Govt did not accept the scientific
explanation of HIV.

The Catholic Church would fight tooth and nail against anything
containing spermicide, for of course they want more little
Catholics.

So it would not be silly to launch a product that focuses on HIV,
even if it does alot more then that.

One thing about Bill Gates, he is not stupid.

Have you sent an email to the foundation and asked? They
have a contact on that website.

Examinator “My comment were aimed at pointing out that THE MORE URGENT PROBLEM is our (the relatively rich’s) profligate life style.”

That is very much a matter of conjecture

What constitutes a ‘profligate life style’ will vary according to the free choice in desires and priorities of each individual.

Speaking personally, any ones degree of individual “profligacy” can only be reasonably assessed as being (or not) within ones ability to fund such indulgences.

The personal expenditure of discretionary income and resources is a completely private matter and

the nature of belief in “personal choice” within Australia, makes criticism or comment on another’s self-funded personal and private decisions inappropriate.

Therefore, the notion of any ones “profligate life style’ is entirely moot.

My concern is more with governments who act profligately, supposedly in our name (I say supposedly, having rarely seen any government action which could be described as being for the benefit of the electorate, as an act of sincere altruism or philanthropy).

We see the incumbent federal government considering levels of ‘profligacy’ which would see them spending more than they receive by way of income.

Since I do not and have never directly benefited from government profligacy of the state, in any manner which exceeds the taxes I am regularly levied, I reject any culpability for government profligacy.

Yabby “Well you know my view on that one, Ludwig. As Darwin suggested,
individuals of any given species will keep multiplying and
multiplying, until in the end it is unsustainable and the whole
lot crashes with a thud. I can't see why humans will behave
any differently, so most likely they will learn the hard way.”

Not being a past reader of Darwin, I thank you for your comment.

I can see the ‘nature of humanity’ to pursue a chaotic and irrational resolution to a resource based problem.

A primal desire to propagate and continue ones genetic strain prevailing over more reasonable and nobler considerations.

I suppose I might congratulate myself for having surrendered to the knife and a vasectomy after siring only 2 :-)

Col Rouge

"Speaking personally, any ones degree of individual “profligacy” can only be reasonably assessed as being (or not) within ones ability to fund such indulgences."

This is not at all what examinator was driving at when he referred to our 'profligate life style'. He was quite correctly making the point that over-population isn't the only threat to our future sustainability, but that the selfish rate at which we're consuming the earth's resources, particularly in the West, is also critical.

Whether a person can pay for their lifestyle or not is irrelevant. It's the consumption levels themselves which are profligate, not any individuals who might be living beyond their means.

"The personal expenditure of discretionary income and resources is a completely private matter and the nature of belief in “personal choice” within Australia, makes criticism or comment on another’s self-funded personal and private decisions inappropriate."

Personal expenditure might be private, but the rate at which individuals consume the earth's resources is a matter for us all. We can no longer afford to let the extreme libertarian 'I can, so I will' attitude dominate. This issue is much bigger than the individual. Collective solutions are required. And constant ranting about individual rights is both unhelpful and unwanted.

“What would be needed to get such a policy up?”

Examinator, a policy of greatly reduced population growth, down to at least net zero and preferably quite a bit less for a couple of decades at least, would require an enormous collaborative global effort.

Impossible? Maybe, but then the world is attempting to deal with climate change, which requires no less of an effort.

What we desperately need is for concern about climate change to morph into concern about total sustainability, instead of an enormous portion of the world’s environmental energies being put into just one aspect of our future-protection while another huge section goes virtually unaddressed.

One significant organisation or national leader could so easily espouse this, and the ball would roll from there. Given that governments do have some problems with touting anything that runs against continuous growth, the people best suited to do this are those who speak on behalf of large non-government aid organisations. First in line is Bill Gates…or even better; Melinda…as matters of population stabilisation / fertility rates / birth control do come across with more clout from a female perspective.

“How would you address the moral, ethical and equity issues?”

Firstly by emphasising the dire consequences of continued rapid population growth, on all levels from personal to global. Of course these issues are difficult, but again, Melinda’s struggle against AIDS confronts these things directly…and the struggle against climate change does also, and very significantly, if a little less directly.

“Who would need to give up having children? The 3rd world?”

NO ONE would need to forego having children. But a very wide-ranging two-child policy would be needed. Or perhaps a one-child policy. Or perhaps if a country’s fertility rate was below replacement level, then people would be free to have three or even four kids. I don’t know. This is the sort of thing that would need to be thrashed out.

continued

“Suppose the population could be stabilized at say 3 billion would it actually solve the world’s problems?”

It would help tremendously, wouldn’t it?

The most interesting question is; would we gain anything if the world’s population was stabilised, or if we managed to considerably lower the growth rate but still have overall population growth, or even if we had a slight population reduction rate?

Not necessarily. The situation could be made worse by dragging out the impact of humanity on the planet before a major crash. But that’s no excuse for not doing our damnedest to reign in the human population problem.

“I agree with Dicky the Gates foundation is a deeply morally flawed institution.”

I don’t. By far the biggest moral flaw is the lack of action on overall sustainability and hence on population growth. This is far far greater than any other flaws the Gates Foundation may have.

“It is inexorably part of the system and therefore part of the problem.”

I don’t believe that in being part of the system it is inherently part of the problem. It has tremendous scope for both remaining part of the system and being a huge part of the solution.

Bronwyn re profligacy, in my opinion is you are completely wrong.

“We can no longer afford to let the extreme libertarian 'I can, so I will' attitude dominate.”

So you would replace it with what exactly?

“Collective solutions are required.”

The strength of any collective is only a reflection of the strengths and diversity of the individuals who comprise it.

A bunch of identical clones, experiencing an ensured “equality”, would only be achievable through carrying the same or very similar genetic profiles and that is a recipe for human extinction.

Check the causes for the Irish potato famine and you will see what I mean.

Respect for individuals each displaying different abilities and capabilities, inherited through diversified genetic strains, is how a species ensures its future existence.

So “Collective solutions are required. And constant ranting about individual rights is both unhelpful and unwanted.”

You are not arbiter of what is either helpful or wanted. When you are, I might still decide to ignore your commands but until that time, I am absolutely certain to ignore such contemptible attempts to shut down my right to express an opposing view.

Ludwig “Examinator, a policy of greatly reduced population growth, down to at least net zero and preferably quite a bit less for a couple of decades at least, would require an enormous collaborative global effort.”

I agree Ludwig, the challenge is to get that effort.

Past experience would suggest the ‘reward’ system of developed countries, with access to developed world technology and decliming populations are not the problem.

Underdeveloped countries are where the bubble is growing.

One option is to withdraw all the development aid and western support in terms of disease control, modernization medical aid and the opportunities which industrialization might bring, which props up the often corrupt government of under-developed world and leave them to their own devices.

That way, as they hurtle toward oblivion, starvation and epidemics will intervene to correct the population growth anomaly.

Whilst this might seem “harsh’ at least it determines, by natural means the natural order of things evolutionary,”survival of the fittest”.

Ludwig,
I understand your passion and AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERNS.
The problem with your response is that it doesn’t address the issues I raise. I’m not saying ignore the problem or to do nothing, I’m simply placing it in a realistic context.

It is one thing to say there is a problem but it is a different issue altogether get it on an already crowded agenda.
Pragmatism dictates we :
• Identify the problem accurately i.e. the root cause and treat that rather arguably a symptom.
In a. recent interview an African tribesman was asked what he thought about the fact that of his 6 children only 2 may make it to adulthood.
He responded by saying “in that case I should have more children”. On the surface your view would seemingly argue the issue is a matter of education.

In reality it misses the reason for more children … to look after him in his old age. In a country where SS is non existent the survival of the family (society) depends on these extra hands. This ‘educate’ view also (wrongly) assumes that these third world countries have the technology and the infrastructure to compensate.
China, a rapidly developing economy, (which most 3rd world countries aren’t ) is now trying to deal with these very social issues. Care of the aged, population movements, employment growth and infrastructure to compensate etc. Then there’s the social imbalance and conflicting ambitions.
Add to that the inherent selfishness and myopic reasoning of ”my right of choice”(regardless of the consequences) advocates in any number of Western countries would block any attempt to curb the number of their progeny.
• Then prioritize on immediacy of need AND implementation.
I also suggest that more thought is needed on the impact of less cheap (exploitable) and labour availability generally. Both this and smaller markets to sell to would have adverse effects on Global economies i.e. prices etc aggravating the poverty issues.
All these are linked and need addressing, I argue our wasteful /profligate ways/lifestyles in the west are the base cause.

Bronwyn,
While we disagree in emphasis or approach from time to time I appreciate your usual grasp of the (contextual) nuanced nature of some of my comments thank you.
I must comment that I never cease being amazed by the near intellectually schizophrenic nature of some of the comments we seem to engender.
On one hand they show some understanding then on the other hand make some of the most ridiculously unsustantiatable assertions. I guess we must put that down to (the lazy person’s intellectualism) Dogma based reasoning.
I appreciate your comments. Keep on punching.
Cheers examinator :-).

Hi Ludwig

I confess, your proposals are far more rational than mine. Rather your glass appears half full whereas, mine is often half empty whenever I learn that the foxes are in charge of the chicken coop.

Though I acknowledge the good works performed by the Gates Foundation on AIDS, globally, at least one-third of the 33 million AIDS sufferers are now co-infected with TB. More to the point are the large and greedy drug corporations who have resisted making drugs cheaper.

The suffering of millions of people is ongoing and will remain as long as the multi-billion dollar drug companies refuse to make AIDS and other medications available to the poorer nations at a price they can afford. More governments need to ignore drug patents and manufacture their own drugs for distribution among their people.

In addition, environmental catastrophes and all other related evils such as climatic changes, water pollution, hazardous industrial emissions, destructive agricultural practices, famines, other health epidemics, soil degradation, child abuse, habitat destruction and torture of animals, emerging new zoonotic pathogens, war and crime, etc. are out of control.

To what can all of these disasters really be attributed? Indisputably, their sole and exclusive cause is our life opposing, continuously growing overpopulation problem, for it subsequently forces an increased need for everything one can imagine.

Many of these problems are now insurmountable since remedial efforts to resolve each problem are usually only very half-hearted in order to enable politicians, industrial and corporate leaders and others to preserve their positions. Additionally, these people are given immense funds which, of course are often funnelled into their own pockets.

Today, due to our collective ignorance, 70% of dry regions in the world have degenerated into desert, not least in Australia. Astonishingly, Australia's migrant intake last year was the highest since the 60s.

Due to the insanity of we terrestrials (millions reproducing uncontrollably like rabbits,) catastrophes of every type are occurring and predestined to occur in the near and distant future. Additionally, "persuasive” measures, by hypocritical governments, to mitigate global pollution have failed.

Alas, my glass remains half empty.

“The problem with your response is that it doesn’t address the issues I raise”

Examinator, I don’t know what you expect me to say then. I agree; the issue is enormously difficult. BUT, I don’t believe that it is inherently any more difficult to address than climate change or AIDS.

You could ask just the same questions that you did in your first post on this thread in relation to these and other huge issues. They’d be just as difficult to answer, but that hasn’t stopped the mobilisation of huge forces in an attempt to deal with them. So why should it be different for population growth?

Yes, the agenda is crowded. So one of the main points is to emphasise that sustainability should be at the top of the agenda, then look at its main components and address them in order of priority, with population growth being right up there.

It would be lovely to be able to outline just exactly how to proceed while upholding equality, respect for cultural and religious practices, human rights, etc. But we can’t. If the population issue is to be dealt with decisively, there will be ’compromises’ in all of these areas and the whole exercise will carry a lot of unfairness with it. But this is no different to other huge social and environmental issues.

The key is to get it through to national leaders and then to whole national populations just what the urgency of addressing population growth and sustainability is all about and what it WILL mean for us all if we fail to deal with it.

If we can just get our heads around that, instead of upholding our extraordinary blind-eye attitude, then we CAN deal with humanity’s greatest scourge – its own fecundity.

As has been demonstrated numerous times; when countries are on a war footing, they can mobilise enormous united forces…of the type that they wouldn’t have a hope of hell of organising in times of peace.

So the key is to make the psychological breakthrough.

Melinda Gates could just about be the most important person in the world. If she was to get out there and start really promoting the urgency of a holistic push for sustainability, including tough action on population growth, then we might get there. If she doesn’t, and the world continues addressing side-issues and symptoms, then….well….

Melinda could cement her place in world history. When the world looks back the year 2200 or whatever, at a time when all this strife is behind us and the people the world over accept the significance of overpopulation and the mind-numbing absurdity of the lack of action when it became a critical issue, until Melinda led the way, they’ll remember her as being greater than perhaps any other person from the 20th and 21st centuries.

Ooow, Bill too of course! This would be much more significant than a ’mere’ Nobel Peace Prize!

Two essentials to limit population growth are:

1. Education for women.

2. Availability of contraceptive facilities and education in their use

Islam objects to the first, and Catholicism objects to the second.

Those of us who believe we should allow poor countries to self-destruct, should remember that the mining operations in Africa, by multinationals from the West, have created an ecological and health time-bomb and failed to help African people out of poverty.

"This is an ecological time-bomb," said Swiss journalist Gilles Labarthe, the author of "Black Gold.”

"The accumulation of ecological degradation and the damage to health caused by open-cast gold-mining is going to ruin the producing regions for generations to come," he added.

Two of the three major culprits, who seemingly operate with impunity, are also mining giants in Australia. All three were financed by major banks such as UBS of Switzerland and France's Societe Generale for the African projects.

Africa holds half the world's known gold reserves and annually produces a quarter of the world's output and it appears, that the “hit and run” operations of the West’s big guys are flourishing. They have profited handsomely, have done little to remediate the degradation they've caused to these people’s lands where these people are the poorer for it.

And in other areas, communities from Argentina to Papua New Guinea have organized to demand their basic human rights and resist the exploitation of their natural resources.

In 2003, before the Standing Committee review and recommendations, the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxic Waste and Products had made special note of Canadian corporate behaviour and lack of accountability.

The report also noted that illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes by Canadian corporations had adversely impacted human rights.

The rapporteur recommended “that particular attention is paid to allegations relating to threats to the traditional lifestyles and rights of indigenous groups” and called on “the Canadian and other Governments to explore ways of establishing extraterritorial jurisdiction over human rights violations, committed by companies operating abroad.”

UN to Canada: “Hold your corporations accountable for human rights abuses.”

The major Canadian culprit operates the largest open cut goldmine in Australia.

To my knowledge, neither Canada, Australia or this particular company have implemented the UN recommendations.

What's the deal here, Melinda?

*In a. recent interview an African tribesman was asked what he thought about the fact that of his 6 children only 2 may make it to adulthood.*

I saw another interview of a bloke with 11 children and he was
really proud of his achievement. Meantime he wanted food aid.
With 11 children I would need food aid too :)

Fact is that still hundreds of millions of women don't have access
to family planning and people will have sex, especially if they
have no tv.

All the surveys that I have seen show that when women are asked if
they would like to limit their family size, most say yes, often
its the men who insist on ever more baby popping.

I remind you that before Western women had cheap and easy access
to family planning, they too had huge families. Crossing your
legs for Jesus is a dismal failure.

The average life expectancy in a place like Niger is around 41,
so not too many would even make old age.

Recently a story done by CNN, had the Western correspondant go
to Nigeria, to some of the villages. She was rather surprised
that various women approached her, offering to give her their
babies.

Some of these women are sick of popping out kids, they need a choice,
which many don't have right now.

I think there's a few crucial points examinator's raised which really cut directly to the heart of the problem.

Take Australia for example - in recent times our fertility rate has been below replacement level, but with migrant intakes our population increases.

This is a pretty important point - once a country reaches a certain level of prosperity (and perhaps secularism, but I'll leave that to one side for now) its population growth slows.

For all of you echoing Malthus - remember, he was wrong.
Advances in farming weren't factored in to his calculations. Never underestimate humanity's will to push forward.

The problem is that this level of prosperity appears to be incredibly wasteful when it comes to resources.

To me, the issue is about resources rather than population growth. Unrestrained population growth leads to a problem with resource consumption - however, when resource consumption per capita within a country reaches a certain point, population growth slows.

I've heard projections that suggested the world population would stabilise at about 10 or 11 billion. Other projections have it crashing. There's some fascinating reading on wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

If we can figure out ways to bring prosperity to third world countries in a sustainable manner that doesn't dramatically increase resource useage, then we've not only solved our overpopulation problem, but I'd wager we've reduced the risks of conflict and ultimately delivered happiness to billions of people.

Of course, this is possibly the largest, most difficult problem that has ever existed.

Hmm... well, at least that puts another slant on the problem...

“in recent times our fertility rate has been below replacement level, but with migrant intakes our population increases.”

TRTL, this is a fallacious belief that has been expressed many times on OLO.

While our personal fertility rate dropped quite considerably below replacement level, we have continued to have a considerable excess of births over deaths, due to there being a much larger proportion of young breeding people in the Australian population than there would be in a normal stable population distribution. This was due predominantly to our immigration program being strongly skewed towards younger people.

So while the fertility rate dropped as low as 1.76, national population growth due to births remained considerable. In fact, even with quite high immigration under Howard at the same time as this low personal fertility prevailed, three or four years ago, about half of our population growth was due to births.

Malthus, Ehrlich and a host of others weren’t wrong. Inaccurate in some predictions yes, but the principles are rock solid. They just haven’t been proven right…yet.

“If we can figure out ways to bring prosperity to third world countries in a sustainable manner that doesn't dramatically increase resource useage, then we've … solved our overpopulation problem…”

Yes. Great if we can do that. But how? Can you suggest any way that we could bring prosperity to 4 or 5 billion people without completely blowing out resource consumption and the planet’s ability to supply the demand?

I think we’d have a much greater chance of dealing with population growth if we addressed fertility rates and birth control directly.

As Yabby points out, some Third World women have lots of babies because they have very little choice in the matter. I reckon this is a very significant factor. … and that any real attempt to deal with the issue would automatically have a large portion of desperately poor women right onside.

Are you sure we're in a position with so many young 'breeding' people? I've been under the impression that like so many other developed nations, we're facing a crisis of an ageing population.

We can't simultaneously have an excessively large elderly population and an excessively large young population, when the consideration is relative between these two demographics.

The point remains - populations naturally stabilise when they reach a certain level of education and prosperacy. Literacy rates can be tied to fertility levels. As literacy and education increases, the number of babies being produced drops.

Population control and assisting underdeveloped nations are both massive problems - the thing is however, solving the latter contributes to solving the former. Whilst it may be a bigger problem, it provides more benefits.

Though yes, I totally agree in relation to the spermacide. Of course, I'd say we need a two-pronged solution to the matter and I can see that this would be very beneficial.

*The point remains - populations naturally stabilise when they reach a certain level of education and prosperacy. *

TRTL, its more complex then that, although as women start to earn
their own money, they are also freer to make their own decisions,
such as buying contraceptives, if they are available.

Kuwait for instance, has a GDP which is 6 times higher then that
of Sri Lanka, but Sri Lanka has a lower birth rate.

The UN data that I studied, indeed showed that the reasons why so
many in the third world were poor, was trying to feed such large
families. Not only that, but trying to educate 6 instead of 2,
makes it even harder. Everyone stays poor.

So my point is this: Given that hundreds of millions of third
world women don't have access to family planning and many cannot
afford it, but would use it if it was available, why not provide
it?

What you are up against is the religious right and the Catholic
Church, who will fight you all the way. But it is time that even
they need to accept the suffering and misery that they are causing,
through trying to enforce their dogma, one way or another, in the
third world.

Yes, we can probably feed 10 billion people, we'll simply steal
even more resources from other species. Everything will be even
more in a tight balance and at the end of the day, if you don't
have biodiversity, you won't have a humanity.

What we have done in places like Africa, is send in ever more
boatloads of food, ever more vaccines etc, but without family
planning, all you will land up with is an even greater population
explosion, as we can see. Waiting 50 years, until they might
develop economically is no solution, if those issues could be
addressed here and now, by willing females, who want some control
over their fertility and lives.

“Are you sure we're in a position with so many young 'breeding' people?”

Yes TRTL. How else could we have a large portion of our population growth being due to births while the personal fertility rate is well below 2?

“I've been under the impression … we're facing a crisis of an ageing population”

The age ratio is changing, but to call it a crisis is just a beat-up from vested-interest big business and their political lackeys.

“We can't simultaneously have an excessively large elderly population and an excessively large young population, when the consideration is relative between these two demographics.”

Well, we’ve got record high immigration which is highly skewed towards younger people. So what does that say about the government’s diatribe on an aging population?

I think Yabby has adequately addressed the second half of your post.

.
“What we have done in places like Africa, is send in ever more
boatloads of food, ever more vaccines etc, but without family
planning, all you will land up with is an even greater population
explosion…”

Yep Yabby. This is why I’m so critical of aid organisations that don’t put a large part (or any) of their energies into addressing population growth issues.

“To what can all of these disasters really be attributed? Indisputably, their sole and exclusive cause is our life opposing, continuously growing overpopulation problem, for it subsequently forces an increased need for everything one can imagine.”

Yes Dickie. Well, overpopulation is the greatest causal factor at least.

On the ‘Sea kittens’ thread you wrote;

The very influential Gates could mitigate population increases with a blink of an eye and a persuasive million here and a million there. A good start would be to supply an untold number of simple vasectomies and a promise of a few bucks more if the recipients agreed. And no more grants if they refused! Gates are the ones, influential in the poorest and largest countries on earth. They have the ear of government leaders around the world. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2446#54552

YES!! If they put their minds to it, they could really make significant progress…and quickly!

..............................................................................IF ONLY THEY WOULD!.......................................................................

I don't agree with withholding grants, though I agree with rewarding vasectomies.

Encouraging and rewarding people who don't have children is good. Punishing them if they do, is not.

It's easy for us to sit here and make such judgements, but in the third world it's children who support you in later life.

I'm all for the spermacide option and empowering women not to have children if they don't want them. That's a great idea. But I really don't like the idea of people presiding over who can and can't have children.

*Contraceptive prevalence in West Africa is among the lowest in the world, yet studies consistently demonstrate that there is a very high unmet need for family planning in this region. During a USAID-supported West Africa regional conference on repositioning family planning held in Accra, Ghana, in February 2005, participants identified shortages in supplies of contraceptives as one of the key reasons for low use of family planning methods.*

That is just one of many organisations, highlighting the problem.

http://africastories.usaid.gov/search_details.cfm?storyID=505&countryID=28&sectorID=0&yearID=6

So you have an ever rising population in Africa and one of their
main supplies of food is bushmeat. Why farm it, if you can shoot
it and AK47s are commonly available. So about 1 million tonnes
a year is shot, including the last of the chimps, bonobos and
gorillas.

All very sad really.

TRTL, the issue is to give people access to family planning and
let them choose. If they don't have a choice, you will get what
you have now. We saw in Asia how well family planning worked,when
it was made available. And no, these people didn't all have a
pension to rely on.

Fact is that people will have and enjoy sex, but that does not
mean that they want to make babies all the time

You'll not find any argument from me in relation to the suggestions of enabling family planning for these women. It's eminently reasonable and a very good idea.

I guess the point I'm making is that I view overpopulation as a symptom of poverty, which can also sustain such poverty.
Population is a big problem, the second biggest problem that will face the world - but it's tangential to the central problem of poverty stricken nations.

Solve that, you solve overpopulation. Solve overpopulation and you've taken a big step towards solving the poverty and resource constraints problems, but they will still exist.

That is not to say we shouldn't take direct measures in relation to overpopulation - as I said, those suggestions are very good.

*Solve that, you solve overpopulation.*

TRTL, clearly it is not that simple, as my example with Kuwait shows.
They are not exactly poor in the Gulf, yet have a rapid population
increase.

Where the West has gone wrong, is that we thought that boatloads
of food and planeloads of vaccines would help Africa. All it has
created, is an even greater population explosion and with huge
families, even more poverty.

We know the basics of solving poverty. Empower people to help
themselves! How many kids would you have, if you had regular
sexual relations with your partner, but no access to family
planning methods? How would you then feed them and educate them
all?

A Peruvian economist whose name I cannot even remember right now,
showed that access to land title is a great way of solving poverty.
If you look at a place like Ethiopia, or Sudan, there is no shortage
of farmland. In fact they are now about to lease some of that land out
to Gulf investors, for it remains unused.

But if people don't have legal title to land, they cannot farm
it, cannot raise credit to buy the simplest machinery to cultivate
it, they are stuck with hand labour from more kids.

Microfinance is another key to solving poverty. Again, it is about
helping people to help themselves.

Combine those three factors and people have the chance of helping
themselves out of poverty. A great many will grab that chance,
if it is offered to them. Sadly right now, it is not.

Bob Geldorf found out about this the hard way. The second time he
went back to help the starving in Ethiopia, there were twice
as many people!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/women-in-developing-countries-denied-choice/2009/01/18/1232213445531.html

Ludwig, this is worth a read. Even Australian Govts don't
have the testicles to tackle the small but noisy religious
lobby and help third world women with family planning.

We spend billions on overseas aid, but not to help them
have smaller families. As I have said before, the
Catholic Church have one talent and that is as political
lobbyists, behind the scenes, as we can see again in
this case.

It is disgusting, but that is how it is, I am sad to say.

Disgusting is an understatement Yabby.

Absolutely ficking shuthouse in the highest order.

Wow, the Catholic Church really is a tool of the antichrist isn’t it.

“We spend billions on overseas aid, but not to help them have smaller families”

Doesn’t this create the most enormous niche for an organisation like the Gates Foundation! If only they’d just jump into this massive void and start spending their money on giving women in developing countries the choice not to have children, and on facilitating a lowering of the birthrate around the world… and on appealing to and assisting governments and other organisations to do the same.

Come on Bill and Melinda. THIS is where your wonderful humanitarianism and huge financial power are really needed!

I wrote this to the Gates Foundation on 13/01/09:

_______________
Dear Madam/Sir

There is currently an online discussion proceeding about the Gates Foundation on Australia’s most eminent online political/social/environmental discussion forum, at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2439

The main gist is one of great support for the efforts of the Foundation, but of considerable dismay at the lack of focus on sustainability or one of its main components; population growth.

I feel as though the Foundation is missing a huge part of the picture in not attempting to grapple with this overriding issue and is defeating its own purposes by effectively being seen to just go along with rapid population growth in an obviously grossly overpopulated world, and with the grossly unsustainable path that humanity is heading down. Given the objectives of the Foundation and the sorts of issues that it deals with, this makes no sense to me.

My (Ludwig’s) opening post elucidates these concerns: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2439#54223

Further down in this discussion: Melinda Gates could just about be the most important person in the world: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2439#54404

I wonder if anyone would be interested in commenting here on behalf of the Gates Foundation. It would be excellent to have your input.

It is very easy to join this forum and make a comment: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=subscribe

Thankyou

Yours Sincerely
…….
Townsville
Queensland
Australia
_______________

I immediately received an automated reply.

I expect that will be the last I hear from them.

YAbby and Ludwig.

Add my support to your expressions of complete disgust at the immoral intervention of the Catholic Church and its co-conspirators in denying one of the most significant tools available to dragging third world countries out of poverty.

I suppose a basis of ignorance and abject poverty is a good and easy pool to source low level recruits and congregants for any organisation, the hierarchy of which which understands the subtleties involved in the pursuit of absolute power

*Add my support to your expressions of complete disgust at the immoral intervention of the Catholic Church and its co-conspirators in denying one of the most significant tools available to dragging third world countries out of poverty.*

Col and Ludwig, thanks for taking the time to think about and respond
to this issue, for sadly, most people don't even care, as it does
not affect them personally. Its a third world problem, not their
problem.

Yet even today in the Phillipines, Catholic organisations are
encouraging ever larger families, Catholic hospitals, which largely
control medical facilities, are denying people the snip or having
their tubes tied, despite their pleas. It does not fit in with
Catholic dogma.

So what we in the West take for granted, they can only dream of,
as a right which they should have.

It is for this reason that I regularly attack the Catholic Church,
for yup, I think it is immoral.

Ludwig, hopefully the Gates Foundation will think about these issues.

Bill Gates is actually good friends with Warren Buffett and I gather
that Buffett has spent some of his money, supporting family planning,
much to the disgust of the extreme religious lobby.

Please, let’s have a realistic look at the statistics.

Traditional Catholic countries now have a low birthrate. Those who believe that the majority of Catholics in the West adhere to the Church’s edict on birth control, are incorrect. They don’t! Catholics in the West have decreased in numbers - particularly Europe.

What is disturbing is the Catholic church’s push into Asia and Africa. Many Asians and Africans are uneducated and are easily influenced by religion. Catholic numbers in Asia and Africa are on the increase but let us not forget that countries with the largest population growths are not Catholic!:

http://siakhenn.tripod.com/birth.html

What I find disturbing is the lack of concern on this thread about the rapid increase in Islam. The Islamic religion is now the largest on the planet and has overtaken Catholicism, however, Islam continues to dominate in Africa so let’s keep the current figures in perspective. The other disturbing factor is that even in the oil rich countries, Muslims are breeding like rabbits. These countries are eco-vandals!

Frankly I would recommend that any leader (religious or non-religious)in any country, who is recommending population growth, should be bloody well locked up. First guy to start with in Australia would be Mr Five Percent. Then we should go after Archbishop Pell who continues to deny anthropogenic climate change. If one could catch up with Yellow Cake Johnny, well give him a slap up too!

Poor women in other nations, already burdened with many children, are servile to their sexual partners who will help themselves at the drop of a hat without the slighest thought of practising their own birth control. Why mitigate 5 seconds of pleasure by withdrawing or carrying a condom eh? Less blame on the women please.

A couple of Gates’ grants to set up interest bearing pension funds in the poorest villages in Asia and Africa could see a significant reduction in population growth.

*Those who believe that the majority of Catholics in the West adhere to the Church's edict on birth
control, are incorrect.*

Err Dickie, nobody has claimed that. In the West, where people
are more educated, have more rights and more freedoms, a large
% of Catholics told the Vatican to get stuffed, when it came
to their sex lives. In the third world, they don't always have
those options.

Fact is that no organisation on earth has done more to prevent
people in the third world having access to modern family planning,
as we have it in the West, then the Catholic Church. As we can
see, if funding is cut off, their objective is achieved and
even Australia seemingly does not have the testicles to stand
up to the Vatican on this one.

*What I find disturbing is the lack of concern on this thread about the rapid increase in Islam.*

I don't see what that has to do with this thread. Even you would
need to concede that the Catholic Church trying to outbreed their
competition, the Muslims, is not exactly a sustainable option.
Perhaps Islam, with less hangups about sex, is for that very reason
more popular.

There is however a large difference. Islam has no central authority
and is open to interpretation about family planning. Meantime the
Vatican has painted itself into an awkward corner on this issue,
by claiming that the pope is infallible.

Few churches have an office at the UN. Few churches fight any kind
of contraception tooth an nail, as the Vatican does.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Here’s an interesting piece. http://www.cirtl.org/buffett.htm

It is written by someone who is against any efforts to address population growth. But it does indicate that Bill Gates'close friend and now world's richest man, Warren Buffet, has spent money on ‘family planning causes and other population control efforts’. It also brings to light a related issue that Bill Gates senior was involved with in the sixties.

So come on Bill and Melinda!

Unfortunately it also indicates that if they did get right into population stabilisation, they’d have a few nutters loudly objecting. But then I’m sure they could handle that.

Dear Ludwig,

I looked up http://www.cirtl.org/buffett.htm and was encouraged that some rich people have put their money to fighting uncontrolled population growth. However, it was a nutter's site comparing abortion to the Holocaust. That is an attitude that I find outrageous. I call them nutters. They, I'm sure, think of themselves as good people and those with attitudes such as mine as evil. I don't see how the gap in perception can be bridged. Although I would prefer adequate education in the use of contraceptives and access to their supply so abortion would be less necessary I feel it should be a woman's right in most cases.

I know some Catholics who live in Dorothy Day House. They are activists for peace and get arrested for various acts in protests against militarism. They also are against the death penalty. I find their social attitudes in many respects admirable.

Although they are quite aware of their own impact on the environment and try to keep it minimal they also harass women going to abortion clinics and do not seem the least aware of the effects of overpopulation.

"When the population increases we find ways of increasing the food supply." and "We can always use more people." are two remarks people in that group have made.

Talking to them over the effects of overpopulation is like trying to teach an ox about art.

Dear Ludwig,

You wrote: Is the value of a desperately poor child’s life, amongst hundred of millions of similarly poor children in Bangladesh worth the same as that of someone like Barack Obama or Bill Gates?

In writing you have mixed two questions - that of tribe and that of status.

Barack Obama and Bill Gates belong to our tribe. The Bangladeshis don't. There are high status individuals in Bangladesh. Perhaps you phrased the question the way you did to put a perception as all Bangladeshis as poor. Of course their average income is much less than ours, but all Bangladeshis are not poor. Some of our children are treated horribly. Occasionally the newspapers have an item of one of our children battered to death.

I have been postulating about your reasons but really don't know why you phrased it that way. It leads to a question of mine. Is tribe or status a more potent identification with most people? There have been a great many anti-Muslim and anti-Israel attitudes expressed on these strings. For the people on the OLO strings it seems to me that tribe is much more important than status.

Ludwig, thanks for the link. America is of course the most religious
Western country on earth. The fundie churches there support the
Catholic Church. Just about every link around the world however,
always leads back to the Vatican. That is the difference, the
Vatican operates globally.

The BBC Panorama programe did a story on some of what the Vatican
is up to in the third world.

The transcript can be downloaded on this URL.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3147672.stm

Great news about Bill Gates's dad supporting Planned Parenthood,
who are the "evil organisation" in the eyes of the church.

Me still thinks that the Gates Foundation is just being diplomatic
and that their anti HIV gel will also kill sperms. They might just
not be saying it as such, for very good reasons.

Yabby. I do believe your paranoia and your hatred of one religion is preventing you from acknowledging the facts on population growth.

Since I understood we were talking about population explosions, I raised the prolific and unsustainable issue of Muslims having exceptionally large families.

"Perhaps Islam, with less hangups about sex, is for that very reason
more popular."

Time for a reality check Yabby. "Less (sic) hangups about sex" requires responsible birth control and it ain't happening in the Islamic world or perhaps you don't read the links provided here? Your malice is evident and your assertions - spurious.

"I don't see what that has to do with this thread. Even you would
need to concede that the Catholic Church trying to outbreed their
competition, the Muslims, is not exactly a sustainable option."

No it would not be a sustainable option Yabby, however, it is not happening. Catholics are not outbreeding Muslims - Muslims are outbreeding Catholics - by the millions!

So are we talking about high population growths or have you once again, corrupted another thread to spread your fanatical hatred of Catholics (of which I am not)?

Please....get a grip on yourself.

*Federal Minister for Population Welfare Chaudhry Shahbaz Hussain outlined the following intellectual themes and objectives of this conference:

That Islam’s classical doctrines do not prohibit family or population control.

That even if they do, hypothetically speaking, by the deployment of ijtihad, Islamic jurists should find newer theories of jurisprudence to justify birth control and family regulation in the civil society.

If I may comment here, without using the word “abortion,” the thrust of the semantics has been that abortion is perfectly lawful and permitted if the woman so wishes.

That a large family is bad per se as it creates poverty and limits the resources of the family, the society, and the Islamic Ummah.

That it is because of larger and larger populations that Muslim nations continue to be poor and without resources. *

Dickie dear, that was part of an Islamic conference about family
planning, which you will find here :

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2005/05/article03.shtml

When the Catholic Church starts to talk in the language that they
are talking, I will take notice.

Meantime it cannot be denied that the Catholic Church remains the
world's largest lobby group against modern family planning.

They are your old employer, perhaps you are just biased.

Dickie “They don’t! Catholics in the West have decreased in numbers - particularly Europe.”

That is because, despite the catholic church, they are populations of a reasonable to high levels of “education”.

I would note the Catholic Church acknowledges its membership growth is in third world countries, places of lower education standards.

I would note the shortage of priests is requiring the transfer of third-world grown priests into Europe and the ‘developed’ world.

Trying to adjoin the Catholic Church to responsible parenting outcomes in this manner is a cynical manipulation of a spurious correlation.

In short nothing short of what we have come to exp3ect from trickie-Dickie

Now dickie, as I am addressing you, I recall some outstanding business, where you claimed I told lies and I called you on it… for the umpteenth time I request you illustrate your sculilous slur with quotes of what I have said or I will just continue to assume and repeat that you are a bare-faced liar, completely devoid of any redeeming quality

"Meantime it cannot be denied that the Catholic Church remains the
world's largest lobby group against modern family planning."

Indeed yes Yabby just as you are part of the largest group endeavouring to overpopulate these arid lands with eco-destructive, cloven hooved animals which have already thoroughly trashed our fragile eco system.

Very little difference between your ignorance and that of the Catholic Church I would say.

The fact remains that your lobby group is succeeding and the Catholic lobby group are failing.

"Dickie dear, that was part of an Islamic conference about family
planning, which you will find here :"

I am not interested in Islamic dogma where birth control is being ignored Yabby - just facts and the facts are that the Islamic world are not practising family planning nor are the Pakistanis to which your link refers. In 2007, Pakistan's population was 164 million. In 2008, it was an unsustainable 173 million!

http://www.chowrangi.com/population-explosion-and-illiteracy-forcing-for-economic-suicides.html

I reiterate, please get a grip on yourself.

Col Rouge

What is the meaning of "sculilous" please?

Are you alluding to the fact that I suggested you were part of a "cartel" when in fact I meant "cabal?"

Either definition could apply, I daresay Col Rouge though on reflection, for someone who continues to pump himself up, feigning expertise in many fields and supposedly top dog in accounting but spends most of his time boasting on OLO, I would perhaps be more prudent to retract both descriptions.

And since my comment to you was made perhaps a year ago (who knows!?), may I ask:

"Why don't you get a life loser!"

Dickie, your post is about as ignorant as I have seen on OLO, but
then you do let your little petty hatreds and vendettas get in
the way of reason and good judgement.

Yes, there are population problems in the Islamic world and yes,
good family planning can change that. The thing is, at least they
acknowledge that and are prepared to address it and start to
take some action.

Not so for the Catholic Church, who still deny that there is
even a problem. It took them around 400 years to finally
concede that Galileo was correct, so we'll see how long
it takes them on this one.

As to my personal circumstances, which you want to drag into
this argument, I remind you that it was your ancestors and
not mine, who introduced sheep, cattle, foxes, cats and
other species into Australia in the first place. Land
was ploughed and washed away.

My involvement has been 30 years of turning what was
unsustainable, into a farming system that is quite
sustainable and a huge improvement in what existed
just some years ago. But then as you have no idea
about what is going on at the coalface of agriculture,
you are clearly too ignorant to understand the significance
of those kinds of changes.

Yours is a simplistic world of guilt by association,
perhaps best you just stick to the housework hey.

Yabby

"Yours is a simplistic world of guilt by association, perhaps best you just stick to the housework hey."

It's always a dead giveaway, Yabby, when we see you trot out your standard old 'housewife' put-down. It's a sure sign you're becoming rattled as dickie, yet again, runs rings around you.

Far from putting her back in 'her place' though as you intend, it only serves to highlight to us all that once again you've run out of ideas and recognize yourself that you're being beaten by a better mind.

Toot toot, here come the OLO sisterhood, peddling away on their
bicycles to defend comrade sister dickie.

I expected no less from you Bronwyn, but I do think that it is
a shame that you girls are so busy bitching, that you leave
it up to men to defend the rights of women in the third world.
Shame on you.

Your perception that housewife is a put down, is simply
your perception. Lets face it, its a very important
contribution, for if it never got done, those homes would
be pretty messy.

Men can't do and know everything and housework is clearly
an area of expertise, where women show a natural aptitude,
unlike us humble males :)

Given that comrade sister dickie knows far more about
housework then she does about agriculture, it is only
fair enough that she should do what she is skilled at.

Lets face it, if you were due to have neurosurgery,
you would want a neurosurgeon to operate. It is only
fair enough that if dickie wants to get bitchy and
comment about agriculture, hopefully she should have some
knowledge about the field,rather then just then knowing how to use
a google bar. So far that has sadly not been the
case.

Now do you have anything useful to contribute about
womens rights to family planning in the third world,
then you have so far contributed?

"I remind you that it was your ancestors and
not mine, who introduced sheep, cattle, foxes, cats and
other species into Australia in the first place. Land
was ploughed and washed away."

Yabby

A bit of trivia for you:

“ John Macarthur was an Englishman who first introduced sheep to Australia. By 1803, his flock numbered over 4000 almost-pure merinos. In subsequent years their flock expanded rapidly.

“John Macarthur returned to England several times, leaving his wife and growing family (14 kids) in Sydney. In 1801 he was sent to London to be court-martialled (as he was still an officer with the Corps) for involving himself in a duel. He was not only able to get the charges against him dropped, but also secured approval from Lord Camden to establish another large sheep-run south of Sydney, which he named Camden Park on his return in 1805.

“In 1808 Macarthur was in trouble again for his role in the Rum Rebellion, where Governor Bligh's efforts to stop the trade of rum in the colony were overthrown by an angry mob. This time, he resigned from the army in order to avoid another court-martial. He was, however, exiled from New South Wales and remained in England until 1817."

Oh yes – live exporter. Aren’t you lucky you haven’t yet been "court-martialled?"

Additionally, cattle, rabbits, goats and cats were on Britain's first fleet to Australia. And of course, less relevant and in more recent times, today’s West published an article on the disgraceful cover-ups of Britain’s atomic blasts at Maralinga.

Since you are an English migrant and my ancestors are not, I would daresay that the ancestral line of these recidivist eco-vandals is more yours than mine.

Not only do you deny that but you also deny that you and your cabal, or is that "cartel" (oops) continue on a rampant exploitation and destruction of this nation’s eco-systems. Perhaps you remain sufficiently deluded in believing that Australia remains a British colony and is yours to do with as you wish?

*Since you are an English migrant and my ancestors are not,*

Sheesh, I will have to waste another post on this dribble.

I am certainly not an English migrant, my background
is from central Europe.

How do you come up with this nonsense? Are you deluded,
do you just daydream, or just too old perhaps?

Given your claim to fame of your ancestors being here
for 6 generations, don't blame me for what happenend
in Australia before I arrived here in the 70s, blame
your ancestors.

What I have certainly done is to make a contribution
in agriculture, to make it sustainable. It was no such
thing when I arrived here, it is very different now.