The same old trout, in the same old Oxygen starved pond:)....Oh this week just keeps on getting better:)

And I,ll bet a million dollars, There all Queenslanders?...lol..

But then again.....Oxygen is something we no-longer invest in:)

1...What are the definitions of a country, that sells all it has:)

2...What are the smartest people on earth:)

3...What will they of think next, when sh!t hits the fan:)

LOL.....sorry people, I have to go.....I have to power up my scooter.

World population, its impacts...........IMO....see these out of dates..........Turn all old people into cat food:)

all the best:)

LEAP

Leap!hang in there old mate! you lend humor to the thread.
Your impressive self confidence is so miss placed it is not easily seen, as is any understanding.
Now industrial rev in be tween 1750 and 1800, we started to burn more fossil fuel mainly coal.
Left the land and grouped in city's.
But 1990 what was the world population? how much, very little, petroleum had we burned?
What is todays population.
How much oil have we burned? coal? can any one tell of a country that is short of clean water?
How many country's can not produce enough food for just their own population?
And we intend to continue to grow world population?
I now must speak to leap again,I have a short fuse but have calmed just in these few lines.
Thanks Leap, in posting that JUNK you confirm many who are not concerned about all of our impacts are at best unable to think.

Belly,

I think LEAP is concerned about sustainability....trouble is that he is more concerned with his (erroneous) idea of himself as extremely clever and witty.....hence, he is seduced into ridiculing his fellow posters just so he can demonstrate to himself the scintillating effect of his profound wisdom.

Every now and then he posts an insightful comment, but mostly he attempts to crash the party, graffiti the walls, blow a raspberry - then wish us all the best : )

This is a common attention seeking device - and one usually employed by people who believe they are cleverer than they are.

But, Belly, I do understand. There's something singularly irritating about a person who tips a bucket of derision on your head - and then wishes you all the best.

Makes you want to ell the protagonist to take a flying....(LEAP) : )

belly,
You have given us the history lesson.

How about you now put forward your ideas on how to stablize the worlds population.

Many can see the looming problems, what we need now is discussion on ways and means to reduce the population problem. No one wants to see people starve.

My thoughts are to start with the lessons from Iran.

The genie is out of the bottle on this one, has been for a while.
What we have is ever more people, all wanting more. Eventually the
whole lot will crash and nature will sort it out the hard way.

*trouble is that he is more concerned with his (erroneous) idea of himself as extremely clever and witty*

Very true, Poirot. The result is that he's not making much of
a useful contribution. Humour is great, but a little intelligence
would be nice too.

As to your Western guilt trip, I'm not on it. We in the West
consume more because we can. But much of what we produce, also
goes to the the third world, so it depends on how you calculate the
figures. I can use resources like copper, steel etc, all recyclable.

I might consume resources, as I do, to grow food for the third world.

The problem seems to be human nature. I for instance, am quite content
with life and what I have. Others always want more. When I ask
them why, they can't really explain it, they just do. Kind of
instinct I guess.

So I don't get too upset about the things that I cannot change
and just enjoy every day. I think its beyond humans to sort out,
they arn't smart enough. So nature will do it the painfull way
in the end. So be it.

Dear Banjo,

The nations of the world are trying to control their population growth through one or more of three strategies: family planning: antibirth policies: and economic improvements.

The strategy of family planning involves parents' use of contraception to limit the number of their offspring. Nearly all the nations of Asia and many countries in other parts of the world are already committed to population limitation through family planning. But no society has yet managed to achieve a significant drop in its
birth rate through this means alone. I guess part of the reason could be that people have to be persuaded to make use of contraceptive technology, and they will not do so if the technology runs counter to their values. Family planning is an essential element in population limitation, but the strategy is not sufficient in itself.

Antinatalism - the strategy involved to public policies intended to discourage birth. These policies include educational programs aimed at changing social values and attitudes about family size. The Japanese Government follows a particularly dramatic anti-birth policy by encouraging widespread abortions. Couples who have only one child receive financial benefits and preferential treatment in jobs and housing. Those who have more than two children are considered as anti-social deviants, a big thing in a highly conformist society.

There is evidence that economic reform might bring about a lower birth rate. In other words if people are allowed to enjoy such basics of life as food, shelter, clothing, health care, education (especially for women), and a sense that things will be better in the future, then they tend to voluntary limit the size of their families. The family-planning efforts of many less developed nations fail, it seems because the resources of these societies are unfairly shared. Typically a tiny elite enjoys a disproportionate share (and its birth rate drops). The mass of the people remain in hopeless poverty, and maintain high birth rates.

Policies that focus on a sharing of resources, rather than exclusively on economic development that may benefit only a minority
may be a promising way to reduce global population growth.