<< 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!