"Interesting comment Bugsy. Most people would not agree I guess, because they don’t even consider the population-growth / continuously-increasing-demand factor. But I would say that you should be right – any such discussion should end up talking about population, because this is generally the biggest factor in just about all resource issues, and the most ignored or maligned factor."

Seriously Ludwig, that is getting a bit old. It's like you've got yourself a hammer and now every problem is looking like a nail. Are you seriously suggesting that we stop bothering to think about how we might reduce our impact on the planet and focus on one solution only - population? What do you think of the IPAT equation?

"And we always have to look at population in tandem with per-capita impacts. "

Says who? Are you saying it is not possible to focus on one problem without getting distracted by all the other problems?

“I put it to you that this statement is approaching the realms of fantasy”.

Bugsy, presumably you agree that Australia should be doing its bit on the world stage to deal with population and sustainability issues. You did afterall say;

“Ludwig, really I do agree with you in principle on the ideal population/sustainability issue.”

And presumably you agree that we should practice what we preach and that we would be downright hypocritical and dismissible if we didn’t.

Whether other countries follow the lead that we should be setting is secondary. The effort we put in is the first concern. The bigger the effort we put in, the more likely some other countries will follow suit and the more the international pressure will be on those that don’t. This is really just a very basic principle, and not in any way fantasy.

Do you think Australia should not bother putting in the best effort we can, or at least a half-decent effort, to secure global sustainability?

“And now if I can hypothesise freely….”

You seem to very clearly be able to see the worst possible scenario resulting from attempts to stabilize population in Australia, but still apparently can’t even begin to visualize the consequences of not doing this.

Your language indicates that you really don’t like the notion of population stabilization at all (“secular humanism”, “enlightened self-interest that would allow us to keep our lifestyles and let only a select few in to share”, “stagnant population”)

I previously asked:

“Bugsy, what is your problem with stabilizing the demand on stressed resources rather than just blindly letting it continue to increase?”

That went unanswered. So let me try this:

How do you think the consequences of continuing to get further and further out of step with our life-support mechanisms compare with the consequences of bringing our whole society into balance with our essential resources?

Well said ybgirp.

.
“Feelings of impotence and inability to address or understand problems lead to cynical reactions that are no help whatsoever. At least we know we cannot rely on you, since you've already given up.”

Bugsy, my impression is that it is you who feels as though there is an overall inability for us to deal with population issues…and that you have all but given up on sustainability, or can see a thousand reasons why we shouldn’t be addressing it.

“Are you seriously suggesting that we stop bothering to think about how we might reduce our impact on the planet and focus on one solution only - population?”

Freediver, why on earth would you think this?

It appears that you have not seen any of my other copious posts on this subject on this forum. I am a great exponent of I = PAT, and of putting the population factor into context with other impacts on environment, quality of life and future wellbeing.

Then you quote my statement that indicates that I do consider population along with the A and T factors:

"And we always have to look at population in tandem with per-capita impacts. "

What gives!?

Never mind if that's the case. It's just that it always seems that when people are discussing practical ways to help the environment you come along and say 'never mind, what we really need is a lower population'.

Why can't I access this thread by browsing? I tried listing the threads by most recent post. Now I have to go to my email account and follow the link that got emailed to me. There is something seriously dodgy with this forum. Is there a regular forum view that I haven't stumbled across yet? Anyway, if I don't return, you can take it up here:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1164956379

"my impression is that it is you who feels as though there is an overall inability for us to deal with population issues…and that you have all but given up on sustainability, or can see a thousand reasons why we shouldn’t be addressing it."

On the contrary Ludwig, I wish your "simple plan" to succeed. To give you an idea of where I'm coming from I will quote Carl von Clausewitz, "In war everything is simple but the simplest thing is difficult."

As it is your plan for population stability is a good one and ultimately necessary, however the best of plans often fail because of a "deconditionalisation", that is the planners have not factored in some of the small (or even major!) conditions that will make the plan difficult to implement. If you can factor in and address some of the major obstacles that I have talked about, eg. Religious traditionalism on birth control and population expansion, then you may have a plan that will succeed. Until then, I fear that your optimism is misplaced.

Deconditionalised plans are good for one thing though, and that is providing hope and optimism, however a conditionalised plan that addresses at least the most obvious hurdles will have a much greater chance of success.

I am not here to be your cheerleader. And I really do hope it can succeed and before the looming population catastrophe.

That being said, what are you actually doing about it? More than blogging I hope?