This is an interesting short video.

http://population.org.au/

Jack Alpert gives a very believable explanation as to why the worldwide human population should be in the order of 100 million.

It makes you think about just how utterly overpopulated we are, and what is going to happen as a result or how on earth we might deal with it.

Hi Ludwig
That video would have to be the biggest load of cods wallop I've ever seen, a bit like the one where albatrosses are trying to feed their young plastic bottle caps and cigarette lighters because they're fooled into thinking they're real food.

The whole thing works on the presumption that everything we dig out of the ground is wasted. HELLO! we recycle heaps! And the fallacy about farming what a... never mind.

Do these morons actually think everyone is as stupid as they are?

Oh and just to add some, someone had better ring the EU quick and tell them their land is a desert waste land because they've been farming it for over 5000 years, 'shakes head in dismay'.

Maurice strong the ex secretary of the UN has similar sentiments.He along with that lunatic Prince Charles would like to see this number achieved.This is the real danger in listen to these nutters.It doesn't take much to develop new human viruses that will kill off millions, perhaps billions of people.Many countries around the planet experiment with germ war fare.We do not need to encourage them with this nonsense.

The world is over populated but we can address this by spending less on arms and more on education,reducing debt and raising living standards.

Ludwig, I have to say that video does nothing to advance the cause.

I'm all for population sustainability, but Alpert invites derision.

Achievable? yes easy Doctor Nuclear bomb, say 600 of them, de sex 99 in every hundred survivors.
only feed the ones you need, yes we can do it.
How truly silly, just China, no India, or do I mean America?
The human body's would be ten feet deep to get down to that number.
Humanity produces some true insanity this is just that.

A population of zero is also sustainable.

Dream on!

As I would have expected, the reaction to Jack Alpert’s video is strongly negative. Of course a population of 100 million is a repulsive notion, once we start to think of how it might be achieved.

Alright, so here’s another view that says that the global population is three times over the sustainable level.

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

How realistic do you think this is?

Alpert makes sense to me. Our population growth will be reversed eventually. It can be reversed by conflict, starvation, disease or other nasty means. It can be reversed by humans realising that the present level is not sustainable and adopting the most humane methods possible to decrease the population. We will probably choose the former. Alpert's video is an attempt to raise consciousness so we choose the latter.

Whatever we choose our population will eventually be reduced. Eventually like other species we will be extinct. However, we can delay our extinction by using humane means to reverse our population growth.

No species can increase in numbers indefinitely.

You're still not going to convince anybody much with those figures, Ludwig. Is the planet's sustainable population 100 million or 2 billion? Given the huge discrepancy between the estimates, which is correct?

david f, I agree that the current world and Australian populations are unsustainable at our present levels of material consumption. However, I think that plucking widely disparate figures out of the air is not a good strategy for convincing the 'growthists' that they're wrong.

Alpert's figure of 100 million seems ridiculously low, particularly since there is no indication of how such a small world population might be humanely achieved.

Ludwig and others
You are on a hiding to nothing on this one.

Anyone not intellectually wedded to the Norman Lindsay's school of 'culinary reality', knows that humans are consuming themselves self out of food and home, in one bloody big orgy of excess.

notwithstanding, both are based on assumptions that resemble a colander.

Rather than pick it to pieces let me suggest that they would learn a lot from the song title "from little things, big things grow". (small steps, perhaps)

The idea needs thinking through on issues we're addressed before namely *HOW*. One needs to also pay closer attention to human nature.
Fear.... who are going to be the lucky few left? how will it be determined and of course the 'country attitude' "Change? it's us versus them again".

The Uber capitalist (we know a few or them)'I'm entitled!' or more recognizably "Damn socialism by stealth!"
The consumerist cattle "where's the fun, the innovation (toys)?".
The list goes on.

What is needed is to change attitudes from the 'more' to 'enough is as good as a feast'.

The key point is that shock tactics or shear logic doesn't work with the greater public, without whom the idea is dead in the water.

One only needs to look at the AGW debate(?) and the down right deviousness tactics of vested interests there-in. While I'm not a grand fan, as an ex-marketeer I tend to look for the smudged finger prints of manipulation and tactical advantage.

How they play on the emotional 'orphans' i.e. an author of 'conflicted' interests and their part in the country tour of 'Brother Love's traveling salvation show'. I hope you get my drift

No wonder mental health issues are on the rise when this sort of human hating garbage is not only promoted but believed by the gullible. Surely the gigantic uncovering of scientist fraudsters should wake up enough people to the false crap that social engineers want to impose on people.

<< You're still not going to convince anybody much with those figures, Ludwig. Is the planet's sustainable population 100 million or 2 billion? Given the huge discrepancy between the estimates, which is correct? >>

I don't know which is correct CJ. But if we get our global act together and gear ourselves towards 2 billion, that would be excellent.

So what would you do CJ? All positive suggestions welcome!

This is THE most important issue in the world and yet how many people do you see who are doing anything about it?

We are way past the point where population stabilisation would be enough. We need quite rapid population reduction. In fact, the largest rate of reduction that we could achieve without employing the unthinkable would probably still barely be adequate.

Even a worldwide one child policy, which would give us one birth for every two deaths, may not be sufficiently fast.

Alpert expresses an end-of-the-spectrum opinion and does it well. So let’s take it from there.

Where is the point of balance between this and unfettered continuous population growth?

Is it the stabilisation of population at the current or slightly higher level?

Is it 2 billion?

Is in halfway in between?

Where’s your point of balance CJ (or anyone)? What do you think we should be striving for?

Dear Ludwig,

Our present population is unsustainable. I don't think we know enough to set a figure as a goal. We cannot predict changes in lifestyle, resource management, consumption and technology all of which play a part in the number of humans who can live sustainably on the planet. We need to reduce population while at the same time develop ways of living that are more sustainable. When we reach the optimum level we will know it by such indicators as atmospheric CO2 levels not varying too greatly, sustainable fish stocks etc. Rather than set a goal of reaching a particular number it is more reasonable to decide what indicators best tell us when we reach the goal of sustainable population.

Ludwig wrote:
"I don't know which is correct CJ. But if we get our global act together and gear ourselves towards 2 billion, that would be excellent."

Interesting! Before I reply to this statement, over what time period would you see us achieve the death of five billion people?

You know I'm for a lower population don't you Ludwig, my past posts should confirm that, but not at the expense of murdering people, is that what your suggesting?

Raw Mustard - you are calling "Director, Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory in Stanford California USA and holds a PhD from Stanford University, an MS (Eng) and a BS (Mech Eng) from Wisconsin University. " a moron.

please, can you share with the Forum your credentials?

<< over what time period would you see us achieve the death of five billion people? >>

Mr Mustard, why do you think that population reduction has to mean the death of anyone?

I would have thought it obvious that the thing to do is to reduce the birthrate to well below the natural death rate.

Crikey, it is large-scale death that we population sustainabilityists are trying to prevent here. So there would be no point in advocating a kill-off, even if we happened to be that callous!

What timeframe? I can’t give you a straight answer because it depends on how low we could get the global birthrate down to, and on the deathrate and what population level we decide we need to achieve.

@ Ludwig

I was just making sure you aren't one of these lunatics:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/hanson-barracking-for-lawless-destruction-and-the-end-of-civilization/

You know they're coming out of their closets more and more these days.
They're quite scary really.

@ aurum_philosophorum

I don't care how many alphabets he's got behind his name. Put an idiot into university and you get an educated idiot out.
That video was a load of crap and you don't need an alphabet behind your name to know it!

Raw mustard,
It is one thing to be thought possibly stupid but it is another entirely to write and remove all doubt.
Try being reasoned i.e. 'you don't agree with him' but the idiot bit?
you are embarrassing yourself with your rabid anti intellectual rant.
FYI I don't agree with him either.

Like it or not most of the advances you enjoy today come from these "idiots" BTW an idiot has less than 60 IQ Point and that means he/she would never get educated.

There is also a difference between straight forward and what you said.

examinator wrote:
"It is one thing to be thought possibly stupid but it is another entirely to write and remove all doubt."

Best you quit while you're ahead then.

"Try being reasoned i.e. 'you don't agree with him' but the idiot bit?"

Reasoned? How do you reason with a supposed intellectual who says we can't farm an acre for fifteen years to be sustainable? Those are the words of an idiot no less! You can spin your PC BS all you like, but that video was utter nonsense and took no sustainability practices into consideration whatsoever and you're trying to label me the stupid one?

"Like it or not most of the advances you enjoy today come from these "idiots"

Umm no, I don't think so, not people like this bloke.

"BTW an idiot has less than 60 IQ Point and that means he/she would never get educated."

Possibly not, but they're just ripe for brainwashing!

Sorry examinator if you don't like my tone, but the time has past for listening to fools that want to talk, talk, talk, BS all day and do nothing other than fill young minds with complete garbage. Why do you think we're in the mess we're in?

so isn't this "crazy, moronic" video really just saying that if earths entire population were to live to the standard of affluent western (american) middle class , that there are only enough (actually not enough) natural resources for 100 million people living at that rate of consumption? i think it's simply meant to be a thought experiment. all he's saying, i think, is that we all need to to consume much less.

Although i did hear a crazy guy on the tram tonight saying he is going to detonate a nuclear weapon on Melbourne.

I guess it's like Carl Sagan's analogy of the history of the Universe. if it was condensed into 24 hours, humans would be beginning to stand upright at the last second of the last hour in the analogous day. you know?

Our waste output per capita is ridiculously large. Just buy less and recycle more. compost. ride your bike to work. an throw away your tv.

I have always and will continue to believe the population of the world is not sustainable right now.
And sadly that we probably can do little about it.
If America, Australia, and Britain, today introduces one child as law, even if we killed every illegal child, would the whole world?
Would some country's continue to breed as a weapon, to have a bigger army.
Would some country's in a world that can not stop people living in poverty dieing of starvation just not care?
Would you me the whole world except not helping those in trouble, so deaths would reduce population.
No aid to Haiti? no food aid to Africa.
No Doctors without boarders.
Scream about our fate, our self destruction.
But never forget it is children like yours we propose must die, we in truth condemn now because it must be said nature is going to kill very many, maybe all one day.

I'm with belly on this.

Population control, as in mandated reduction of future population, can never be justified on an individual basis.

You can hoot and holler till the cows come home about the big picture, and how we're all rooned, and how we're raping the planet. But there isn't a hope in hell of formulating a policy that will cause it to happen.

You cannot legislate against people having children.

You cannot legally bring it about by other means, e.g treating the water supplies etc.

The nub of the issue, surely, is contained in this earlier contribution from davidf:

>>we can delay our extinction by using humane means to reverse our population growth.<<

Who, in this scenario, are "we"?

We as individuals can of course refrain from having children.

But we, collectively, cannot.

Why is this so difficult to understand? I know that it is an unwelcome reality, but it is reality nonetheless. Would it not be more sensible for thinking human beings to accept reality and look for constructive, as opposed to destructive, ways to prolong the life of this planet?

It is after all "when" rather than "if" this planet becomes uninhabitable.

Incidentally, if there were only 100 million people in the world, Australia's share of that number equates almost exactly to the population of Canberra.

Coincidence? You decide.

<< I know that it is an unwelcome reality, but it is reality nonetheless . >>

Gravely, I fear that you are right Pericles.

<< Would it not be more sensible for thinking human beings to accept reality and look for constructive, as opposed to destructive, ways to prolong the life of this planet? >>

I don’t what you are referring to as destructive. Surely not efforts to reduce the global birthrate?!

If we are to accept that we can’t deal with the global population problem, then what truly constructive things can we do?

I think the video is worthwhile viewing in that it makes us think. His figure for 100 million is too low, however, partly because it is based on American life-style now. I don't see why we can't live a simpler life-style with little travel and locally grown food. Certainly peak oil and climate change are going to dramatically lower carrying capacity of the Earth and we may indeed end up, as James Lovelock suggests, a few million of us huddled around the poles. My own figure for a sustainable world population would be about a tenth of what it is now i.e. 600 million.

>>Would it not be more sensible for thinking human beings to accept reality and look for constructive, as opposed to destructive, ways to prolong the life of this planet?<<

It would, but it might be a forlorn hope. People have a habit of excess if they can get away with it. And numbers rule, eventually.

>>Coincidence? You decide.<<

?? [X-files music]

>>But never forget it is children like yours we propose must die, we in truth condemn now because it must be said nature is going to kill very many, maybe all one day.<<

The ultimate solution might well be in what Belly says. Over a period of time, nature will decimate the world's population through fires, floods, disease, drought, cyclones, earthquakes and tsunamis etc which are becoming ever more regular and severe. There might even be celestial activity, which we are only scantly aware of now, that really finishes off the job.

I don't believe all humans will die as that would defeat the purpose of being on the planet in the first place. But, in the absence of humans being able to, nature will, over time, do what is required to get the global population down to a sustainable level. That's probably about a third of what we have now.

As I've said before, shock and awe, doomsday media works quickly and works in short political campaigns including AGW, new headlines, ads because they play on the emotions.

This can be seen with Obama an emotional shot in the arm but he was never going to live up to the hype, he couldn't. For that matter neither could Rudd. All are bound by political and practical realities.

For the same reasons the video is unhelpful to the discussion.
Ludwig, as we have tangled many time on this point and is reflected in a number of posts and best summarised by Pericles the big question is How?
So far two years now the same topic goes around but never seems to grasp the nettle and come up with meaningful *solutions* beyond international conferences ( Copenhagen proofed the success to be expected from that option) or build an incredibly big defense force.
A thousand refugees showed tat to be a farce....next?

my solution was to change the biggest inhibitor to change. The political system that is bound to meet capital's wants.
Seriously Rudd had no other viable choice given the above, the changing age demographic and our reluctance for self limitation and unwillingness to pay for services through taxes note the current idiotically myopic topic.
I would suggest we think laterally and consider option to make people behave more community consciously.

Now we are getting some place, maybe we can talk about numbers, I still think we will fail, nature will not it is just a question of when.
Let us imagine [ a nightmare not a promise] all governments said we will reduce the population over the next 100 years.
If Canberra's population is our share, what is Chinas and India's?
Would they want the same percentage as now.
America, would they reduce their numbers to about 3% of now/
In that 100 years, to make it work millions would have to be stopped by any means, from breeding who would judge what ones.
So Ludwig says what do we do.
Horrible task, not easy, not humanly possible.
Say we have two child policy's, we surely know some country's kill girls as they want only a son.
Would we see that here.
Would our country or America, England, any be safe from people who want to live here, in a relatively vacant country [we would be then].
We could try welfare in reverse, less tax for one child family's maybe zero tax.
But even that, forced and maybe unfair will not work in poor country's that do not pay tax in many cased, population for them is often needed family labour.
Nature is still my best bet but we should never stop looking for better ways to protect our world.

<< His figure for 100 million is too low, however, partly because it is based on American life-style now. >>

Yes popandperish, it is far too low to be considered as an ultimate population goal. But it does make a figure of 600 million or 2 billion or whatever seem that much more reasonable than if I had started this thread with either of those figures.

That’s the positive thing that comes out of Alpert’s video as I see it. His cool and logical assessment and conclusion of 100 million cannot be easily dismissed. So when we think of a figure that is ten or twenty times higher as being a possible goal to get the global population down to, it makes us think that we would have to be doing a whole lot of technological improvements and efficiency gains as well, if a population of 1 or 2 billion is to be sustainable and we are to have a decent quality of life.

It well and truly makes us think about just how grossly overpopulated the planet is.

Yes it does force us to think about population.
It even forces us to understand our fate is in other hands.
For the sake of debate.
Let us say we have settled on a figure, it is 4 billion, not one more.
And every country in the world has agreed.
Again just to reduce current numbers we give ourselves 100 years.
to meet that number, we then must control who has a child who may not.
What each country's total number is to be.
Some we may well say have no right to ever,,, have a child.
We , most of us, know we have a problem.
Most can see to fix it , we would need to get very close to forgetting the very thing that makes us human.

Belly, you’ve certainly highlighted just how hard it would be. Even to achieve a population of 4 billion, or to keep it below 7 billion for that matter, would be simply beyond the powers of humanity.

It’s totally in the laps of the gods, or Gaia or Mother Nature.

But not so in Australia. We DO have the power to control our national population and preserve a decent quality of life…..and to put ourselves in a very good position of riding through the population crash event(s) relatively unscathed.

Ludwig,It would not be difficult to reduce the world's pop by billions with weaponised diseases.The only thing stopping the nutters is that they too could become victims unless they have access to an effective vaccine.

If a whole lot of people can get together and fudge climate statistics,then they can certainly create new human diseases to kill many people.While one virus may not be a threat,a whole series of different ones would have devestating effects.

Consider this.Many people like youself see the world to be way over pop.Those who have enormous power have been considering for decades a solution to the problem.They have no intentions of going down with the ship.

They can move in many ways.ie Have a totalitarian world Govt under the guise of saving the planet from AGW that Monckton revealled and then do it by economic means, ie extreme austerity,or have wars,use land for growing fuels instead of food,instigate new diseases, or monetary means, ie create even more debt and inflation to destroy currencies and people's earning capacity.

It is all happening now to some degree,but is it just just atrophism ie, the way the plant reacts to light,or is it planned?

People rave on about lunatic conspiracy theories being farcial.Well the intentions at Copenhagen of a World Govt financed by our Carbon Taxes were not fanciful or farcial,they were an intended reality.

Ludwig in relation to Australia I agree with you, we should control and limit our population.
To no more than its present numbers.
But if we do, and we will not, we will still be seen as vacant land in comparison to some of our near neighbors.
And our efforts will be in vain.
Commerce, governments, all of them, want to increase our numbers.
Others wrongly for generations have said grow or perish.
We rightly, strive to stop suffering in other country's, illness diseases, hunger and earth quakes see us help.
If we said ok we are not doing enough, lets levee every tax payer, let us end world hunger, if we did?
World population would sky rocket.
Too many will say let us let them, any one but us, die.
Horrible, I could never live with it, but nature one day will force just that on humanity.
We must plant two trees for every one we cut down.
Find at all cost sustainable fuels.
reward people for having less children.
It is a huge task but mankind if we work at it, can improve if not change our fate.

Belly wrote: "We must plant two trees for every one we cut down."

Dear Belly.

Planting trees is no panacea. Consider one aspect of environment destruction. That is the loss of biodiversity. Probably the chief cause is the loss of habitat. If we plant trees in an area where there has been habitat loss we may cause greater habitat loss because the trees we plant may be unsuitable habitat. Planting trees may cause extinction of the endangered species. We need to determine the best land use considering water table, climate patterns, biodiversity etc. It may or may not be the best decision to plant trees.

Ludwig,
That's the country boy in you.You think too local.
-Let's assume in western Tibet,the major feeder glaciers continue to retreat and disappear (indisputable fact) and the four rivers dry as predicted. Those rivers include The Ganges and the Yellow river.
- the sea rises or nature make more serious storms and more of
Bangladesh/India floods, Indonesia floods

Net result: Where do you think the refugees are going to go?
best we get involved to sort out their problems so they stay there.
Fortress Australia is a bit of Aussie wishful thinking.

As is stopping businesses driving government they need consumption to survive. The economic model is the problem.
Regardless of the reason for a population crash Australia would not be immune simply because we rely on other nation for more than just consumer toys.
I.e. Some GM food has suicide genes. So long as we can get new grain we'll be ok but if the economic system collapses under debt we have a problem to put it mildly as with products we no longer have the ability to manufacture or grow.

If China crashes because of growth issues so will its industries and 30% of our export and god know how much imports .
We will have problems not survive unscathed.

My point is if we cap or reduce our population it will alter the whole way we survive and do business.
First things first we need a better system and be more self reliant.

<< Ludwig,It would not be difficult to reduce the world's pop by billions with weaponised diseases. >>

I don't think it would be all that easy Arjay.

I thought of this when I was writing my last post. I had originally written:

Population stabilisation or reduction << …would be simply beyond the powers of humanity, unless we do the unthinkable >>.

Ok, so to think about the unthinkable - it would be pretty hard to do it with weaponised diseases as any released pathogens wouldn’t stay where the releaser wanted them to stay, they’d very likely end up in the country or part of the world that the releaser specifically wanted to remain unaffected.

There would also be the great potential for one country to launch nuclear weapons at another if they are suffering a devastating pathogenic deathrate and suspect a particular country of releasing it.

Eeergh, that’s enough of that sort of stuff.

I can’t see how a totalitarian world government would solve the problem, and I certainly don’t buy Monckton’s assertion that AGW is just one huge power grab or attempt at world domination!

I think Belly is right: Mother Nature is by far the best bet for dealing with this issue.

Ludwig if you release diseases into poor countries who have no nuclear weapons then all is well.The problem with viruses is they mutate very quickly and vaccines become useless.It may not be Govts but international drug companies experimenting with viruses since we are then taxed to solve the problem.Who knows?Some people firmly belive this but how could you prove it?

The Spanish Flu killed 20 million.They say the swine Flu may come back a more virilant form.Is this just another scare campaign?There is currently an investigation into the drug companies who made a fortune out of scaring our Govts into over reacting.Swine flu was no different from any other flu.They hyped up a few deaths which were less than normal flu and we all paid for unnecessary medication.

The over use of antibiotics on our farms is a real concern since many diseases are now resistant them.Why our Govts let this practise continue is beyond me.

The pop problem can be solved in part by education and raising living standards.Perhaps it is too late for some doomsayers but they had a great opportunity after WW2 when pop was just 2 billion,but elected to go for weaponry over education and development.Instead of helping countries the USA and the MIC[ Military Industrial Complex]went for empiralism keeping many countries poor and ignorant paticularly through debt.These poor countries could not trade unless they bought US dollars.

The debate about population sustainability can be had without hysterics on either side. Rational debate is possible on this issue without resorting to accusations of anti-human agendas. Paranoia is alive and well.

As others have said, you cannot achieve a humane end to a problem by using inhumane means.

The only way you can achieve population sustainability within any one nation is via changes to immigration policies (replacement only), ensuring social security safety nets and eradicate baby type bonuses while still affording some welfare to low income families with children.

Some decentralisation policies to reduce congestion and infrastructure problems in big cities would also go a long way.

At the Cairo Population Conference representatives of the Catholic Church supported the Muslim opposition to education for women in return for their support for the Catholic opposition to abortion. A Catholic I know who is fervent in opposition to militarism and other antihuman attitudes and practices cannot see that increasing population is any problem. She said, "We can always use more people." and contends that there will be an increasing food supply to fill the additional mouths.

I believe a population of 100 million is not only achievable, it may well be inevitable.
Currently, around 20 countries have achieved negative population growth; without draconian legislation or genocide. Negative population growth appears to be the natural consequence of a high standard of living, and a well educated population.
Would you believe one southern hemisphere country is actually paying people to have babies?
How long will it take? First,
we have to end poverty,
achieve a world wide infant mortality rate of less than 4% (that's right, I did say 'less than')
enforce world wide anti child labour laws, so children become a cost, rather than an asset, (this could be achieved by simply not trading with countries which condone child labour).
and of course, stop offering monetary incentives to prospective parents.

<< But if we do [limit our population in Australia] … we will still be seen as vacant land in comparison to some of our near neighbors >>

Belly, if we increased our population to 100 million, we’d still be seen as almost vacant, and indeed a very large part of Australia WOULD still be almost vacant.

There is very little point in increasing our population for defence or deterrence reasons. In fact, the maintenance of a high quality of life and a strongly coherent society which would allow us to maintain a strong technologically advanced defence capability, is much more important than the numbers of ‘foot soldiers’.

It is also vitally important for us to be able to have a significant input into refugee and population issues via our international aid programs.

A rapidly growing population severely threatens social coherence.

<< Would you believe one southern hemisphere country is actually paying people to have babies? >>

Yes Grim. Who woulda thunk it possible?

Talk about Ripley’s Believe it or Not?

I bet that just about anyone anywhere else in the world who had just heard about this for the first time would be standing there in total disbelief, wide-eyed, agape and in bad need of reality check!

Burying heads in the sand is pointless - the FACT is that without serious worldwide / international:

Recognition of the problem.
Discussion about the problem.
Research into solutions.
Co-operation to provide / achieve those solutions.

- The BIGGEST THREAT facing humanity is NOT disease, it's NOT war and it's NOT natural disaster (ie. earthquake, tidal wave, meteor impact etc.) - IT IS OVERPOPULATION.

The two obvious ways we can go is either figure out ways of CONTROLLING it - or alternatively and more humanely, let population increase naturally and work out ways of COPING with it (ie. be able to provide food, accommodation and services). These are the sorts of discussions that NEED to be getting under way NOW!

Ultimately just as with other animal populations, left to it's own devices it will self correct but it could be very nasty and by virtue of the fact that - unlike animals - humans have technology, it could be disasterous to our species (ie. if nuclear war is triggered or someone resorts to using biological control).

Grim and Ludwig, your statement that we pay people, very often the wrong people, to have children, supports my view here and in other threads, both party's share the view increased population is a good thing, for us.
Sorry but it is increasingly clear at least to me, an industry is being built on unwanted children, to our shame many, far too many children are in care of Foster carers.
No disrespect meant, some hopefully not near most, are nothing but baby farmers caring more for money than the kids.
Trees, well yes let us not plant wrong trees in wrong places but why not re plant?
Why not return bush to its natural state not farm land that is at best marginal.
Examinator as usual gets closer to reality, we just must consider, understand, if those rivers die , if true hardship sets in , we can forget about our concerns with refugees/boat people, and never not ever control our population again.
If we said 100 million, if we for one second thought it was achievable, we would have to become mass murderers to achieve it, even if we said 300 years was our targeted time to do it.
Sterilizing masses controlling who breeds, saying what percentage of that number each country could have, inhuman not achievable if we want to remain what makes us human.
And Australia will be confronted one day by the number who want to share our country.

Thought so.

This thread was never intended to debate world population. It was simply a stalking horse for anti-immigration propaganda.

The original proposition - world population of 100 million, a number not seen since 500BC - was never remotely credible, or even useful as a debating tool.

So after some metaphorical dancing with seven veils of faux-concern over whether 100 million, 2 billion or whatever is a sustainable number, Ludwig finally shows his true colours.

>>to achieve a population of 4 billion, or to keep it below 7 billion for that matter, would be simply beyond the powers of humanity...But not so in Australia. We DO have the power to control our national population and preserve a decent quality of life... <<

Dog whistle blown, along comes pelican to tidy up.

>>The only way you can achieve population sustainability within any one nation is via changes to immigration policies<<

Thank you, says Ludwig.

>>It is also vitally important for us to be able to have a significant input into refugee and population issues via our international aid programs.<<

Can't you SIFs even be honest with yourselves?

<< This thread was never intended to debate world population. It was simply a stalking horse for anti-immigration propaganda.>>

Dear o dear Pericles, you’d have to be doing some pretty highly selective reading of posts thus far to come to that conclusion!

How about debating on the statements that you quote instead of just poo-pooing the person who wrote them, hmmmm?

C’mawwn, entertain the debate instead of playing the man!

The real issue limiting control of population and excessive consumption in the West relates to the issue of control of the population by the axis of capital/ media/government. Like it or not- the people who profit most from the current situation hold nearly all the cards when it comes to controlling public opinion through the media.
The situation of overconsumption, of seeing people in the 3rd world as a threat and as our enemies suits the Murdochs, and the Enrons of this world very nicely. They are profiting, they are continually increasing theri slice of the pie. They think that their political control will last forever. It will not. The credibility of the media, vital in maintaining the current status quo, was dealt a mortal blow by the Iraq affair. Look around you- many people will not buy into the next war that the military industrial complex try to foist upon us so that their weapons continue to seem relevant. More and more of us are just going to walk away and say "No thankyou- I do not recognise your authority." Make no mistake- a crisis is coming- one of Biblical proportions quite likely. In the end it will be between the people who choose to share and cooperate and those who do not.

Err...Pericles can't let that one go. If you are going to quote me do the courtesy of taking the whole paragraph. How is a advocating for a replacement policy anti-immigration? ie. one out, one in proposal regardless of race.

How are population polices to be discussed if immigration is not included? Those arguing for greater unfettered growth can only do it via birthrates or immigration. It is but one part of a population plan.

Nation, as opposed to global, because it is impractical and impossible for any influence to extend beyond one's own borders, other than fostering more equitable economic and foreign policies that don't discriminate or work against the economic and social health of poorer countries.

Oh, and just for a bit of maths assistance, 100Mil is roughly a 60th of the present population- by equal proportions, Australia's ENTIRE population would only be 300K- which is roughly a twelfth of Sydney's current population.

I speak as someone who thinks overpopulation is a big problem- but when the author starts drawing huge catastrophies and silly estimates I'm afraid criticism is all they will recieve.

The earth CAN support a gigantic human population- of course, this may well need to exclude a considerable degree of civil living the higher it goes.
The REAL problem is, where the huge numbers of people live and how they share infrastructure, the environment and what they compromise to make space (or the space compromises to accomodate THEM).

THAT is what the population crisis is about and THAT is what authors should be focusing on.

Thanks fore the numbers King Hazza, and no thanks Pericles for the back hander.
I do not see the thread as one about migration/boat people.
King Hazza says it rightly, if we only had 300.000?
We would be vacant land.
YES western world consumes far too much.
But with no room for doubt is out bred by third world country's.
So share the blame for our problems.
Ludwig, others of like mind, please tell us how can this country, any country control its population, stay viable, without an international plan for every country to do the same.
We simple as it sounds can not, defending our boarders would cost twice the GNP.

Sorry if I've offended. It just seemed so obvious to me.

>>How about debating on the statements that you quote instead of just poo-pooing the person who wrote them<<

Actually Ludwig, it was the statements themselves that led me there.

Given that the original topic was "what to do about world population", fuelled by a ridiculous proposition that there is only room for 100 million people..

Given that everyone agreed, after some cosmetic pussyfooting around, that limiting world population by government action was an unrealistic objective, and had been from the outset.

Given that we then switch focus to our own borders, and...

...given that historically Ludwig has a tendency to steer discussion on population to the question of high immigration levels...

>>The debate on high immigration and high population levels is happening, at last. Thank goodness for that.<< (Dec 31st)

...I drew my conclusions. Obviously in error. Apologies all round.

But seriously, fortress Australia is not an answer, and never will be. The broad question, of whether Australia is able to support greater numbers, is inevitably mired in NIMBYism, instead of recognizing that people have lived in, survived in, and ultimately prospered in environments easily as challenging as that which we have in Australia. We're just too accustomed our own affluence to see it.

Now back to the topic.

The world's population will ultimately shrink - the last numbers I saw predicted a peak in around forty years time - as globalization slowly drags the most disadvantaged into its orbit.

The correlation between GDP and population replacement rates is well known.

http://www.search.com/reference/Total_fertility_rate

Instead of fretting about the impact of population growth on the world economy, I suggest it would be more instructive - and ultimately more rewarding - to concentrate on the impact of the world economy on population growth.

It would at least avoid the need for a global clampdown on nookie.

Surely Pericles isn't suggesting that Ludwig would stoop to 'bait and switch' tactics in order to engender yet another tiresome discussion about immigration and border protection in Australia?

We are all reading the same thing while at the same time reading something different into comments as well.

I took Ludwig as poo-pooing the whole 100million people worldwide as well. I don't think he was supporting that ridiculous proposal.

The trouble with the population debate is that it becomes a race debate with little attention to the issue at hand.

It is possible to debate this topic without accusations hurled at each other, fun that it might pose, about racism. Accusations that are hurled all too easy these days thanks to media beatups.

Perhaps we need to start a thread which straight up states a replacement immigration policy which does not discriminate on race and get on with actually discussing what people think is an optimum population for Australia.

It is pointless discussing world population in any detail until there is a discussion about distribution of resources.

No wonder mental health issues are on the rise when this sort of human hating garbage is not only promoted but believed by the gullible. Surely the gigantic uncovering of scientist fraudsters should wake up enough people to the false crap that social engineers want to impose on people.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 28 January 2010 11:45:25 AM

Indeed runner, keep the people scared and amenable. The world will turn and people will eventually adapt or become extinct. The species will change or die but the earth will remain. In the meantime we all have to put up this this BS. It's political as we all know, well I hope we all know that. How gullible would you have to be?

You know they have been talking this up for years and years, when I was young the predictors stated that by the year 2000 there would be some many people we would be standing shoulder to shoulder. I have heard it all before. And some people wonder why I am a sceptic?

Ludwig, who exactly is 'we'?

You said: "I don't know which is correct CJ. But if we get our global act together and gear ourselves towards 2 billion, that would be excellent".

Ludwig which part of the global act are you referring to?

I still think we have addressed the issue, world population 100 million, and found it unachievable.
Yes Ludwig is opposed to migration Numbers and our predicted numbers in 40 years.
And yes sometimes he is blinded by his dislike of Rudd.
But it was Peter Costello who said one for mum one for dad and one for the country.
And Baby bonuses exploded under Howard, evidence My views both sides want to increase our numbers.
The idea the world needs only 100 million is in my view rubbish.
Those people would live a life of luxury compared to some, and those refused the right to breed.
Nature will make it easy on us, great tragedy Will come but surely not down to that number ever?

Can somebody tell KRUDD that he is over-populating Oz.. Logically this country cannot presently keep accepting over 250,000 immigrants if there are no support services etc.

The country will not support 36 million by 2050 if the Inter-generational Population Report is to be believed UNLESS there are large taxes to pay for infrastructure and lessen the effect of loss of social services and values as we know it now.

So where to from here? Populate or or perish, now who said that? One for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country? Pleassse.

Dear Belly,

Eventually there will no humans whatever we do.

<< Ludwig, others of like mind, please tell us how can this country, any country control its population, stay viable, without an international plan for every country to do the same. >>

Belly, if Australia reduced immigration to net zero and abolished the baby bribe, our population would continue to rise slowly and gently plateau off at something like 26 million.

Population control is as simple as that in this country. There is nothing in the slightest bit unviable about it. It is whole lot more viable in terms economic and social wellbeing than a population of 35 million or more would be.

In most other countries, it is a very different story. Much harder. Aren’t we lucky in that regard. Well, we would be if we didn't have a government that is doing it's utmost to dismantle this very fortunate situation.

<< We simple as it sounds can not, defending our boarders would cost twice the GNP >>

As I said earlier Belly, our defence capability would be stronger if we had a strongly coherent society and economy and thus a significant financial ability to maintain a good defence force. Rudd’s massive expansionist policies will not lead to that sort of situation, they’ll do just the opposite.
----

<< Surely Pericles isn't suggesting that Ludwig would stoop to 'bait and switch' tactics in order to engender yet another tiresome discussion about immigration and border protection in Australia? >>

Ah yes, there’s old CJ making some inane comment on another ‘tiresome discussion’, without adding anything useful to the discussion. How unusual!

Talk about tiresome. Snore! ( ;>c

<< Ludwig, who exactly is 'we'?

You said: "I don't know which is correct CJ. But if we get our global act together and gear ourselves towards 2 billion, that would be excellent". >>

Raebee isn’t it obvious?

‘We’ means humanity, that is; all people of the world, in this context.

<< …which part of the global act are you referring to? >>

I don’t see where any possible confusion or uncertainty lies in what I was saying. I’m referring to the worldwide population issue.

The thread Ludwig has been a good one, congrats.
We each have every right to express our views.
And a tendency, it is human nature , to think we are closer to the truth than others.
We truly, most of us, have taken on others views here, even agreed with things that we once would not have.
I think, truly, I have given ample evidence both sides in Australian politics want higher populations, yes one side pretends it is not true, but form says it is.
RAE BEE you drag the debate back to other threads with your few posts here, that pulease is a verbal thing,self certered and often proof the user is self self centered as useless as female parts on a bulls lower end.
And you view simplistic and not addressing the vital thing.
How can we ever achieve such numbers?
How could we ever swim against the growing world population and think we can be safe.
Ludwig talk of ways to defend us , dreams surely.
David
you get closer to the truth than us.
I doubt self interest will ever let the world get together and achieve better.

Jeez, sorry it was the heat of the moment. Like everyone I feel a bit anxious, no harm meant. Bow and retreat, it's not like I disagreed. Did I get personal?

RAE BEE you drag the debate back to other threads with your few posts here, that pulease is a verbal thing,self certered and often proof the user is self self centered as useless as female parts on a bulls lower end.
And you view simplistic and not addressing the vital thing.
How can we ever achieve such numbers?

I wasn't making a personal statement to you, what is your problem? Why is your view more valued or less valued than mine? We post here to a set of rules don't we? I find you comment quite insulting and arrogant. Why get angry and personal?

Am I then to hide my views under a rock then RaeBee?
I said what I thought/think I do find the use of such words as I said.
I did not say it to hurt, withdraw any insults you took but can you under stand such words insult me?
I live in a world inhabited by such words.
Know all over the western world as W%%k Word bingo it is played every day.
I walk out the door in minutes travel to Sydney and spend the day listening to fools who [behind the times] flutter fingers high above their heads and say idiot things like "so they say"
And pluleassse usually come from some one why has just re entered to room after coffee number ten and has no idea the conversation has moved on.
Agony, true, To make it worse, it could not be you say?
I share the day with public servants trained not to say anything that can be understood to me.
So plueeeaases forgive me.
Hang on my card is full, hope first prize is an early mark got a late visit tonight.

It can make your brain dead having to talk to public servants, working with them might just have you running, screaming to the nearest dark hole or retreating into retirement,like I did.

Hang in Belly I have respect for your posts as I do for all the others, even if I haven't agreed with some in the past. I don't have anything against anyone.

Be boring if everyone agreed all the time, and there is always something to be gained even when I am getting told off, cool with me babe. I get told off all the time at home so I can cope.