“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.