That’s a very telling post Pericles. Thanks for being so frank.

Regarding reducing the world’s population, you say that you << cannot agree >>

But then you say that you << would however accept a proposition that stated "a reduction in the world population might, over time, prove to be largely beneficial" >>

Seems contradictory to me. Could you please clarify.

Of course any reduction in population would be by natural attrition. I mean, how else would it be done? With a few nukes or biological warfare? Of course not.

But if it is to happen by natural attrition, obviously the birdthrate has got to be lowered below the deathrate.

Regarding humanitarian aid, yes of course the rich countries should be sending food and medical assistance to the poorer ones. But of course they should also, with vehemence, be assisting them with population control and sustainability.

For many decades the regime of aid has been too short-sighted. It has led to greatly increased population growth in many countries. This is one of the greatest paradoxes of humanity – improvements in food provision and medicine and their distribution to the needy have resulted in them now being in an enormous poverty trap due to very rapid population growth.

Of course this sort of aid should be given, and much more so than it is. But it desperately needs to be balanced by family planning aid and all manner of assistance for poor countries with rapid population growth to reduce their growth rates.

I wrote:

<...whatever methods are implemented to do this are going to reduce some peoples’ freedoms to some extent... That needs to be weighed up against the reduction in freedom and quality of life that WILL occur for the majority of people... Again, do you agree? >

Pericles, you wrote:

<< No. I am implacably against the reduction of our - already massively circumscribed - freedoms. Especially as the beneficiaries will not be me, or my family - or my city, or my country - in my lifetime or theirs. >>

Dear oh dear!

Can’t you see that your freedoms HAVE been reduced quite a bit over the last, say, three decades? Even in wonderfully free Australia, we have seen ever-more rules and regulations that restrict our freedoms. Why is this? Directly because we have been overdoing our impact on the environment, both the human environment and the natural environment and on our resource base, and we need to be reined in a bit, for the good of us all. Rapid population growth has been a very large part of this.

Isn’t it a bit selfish to implacably denounce any reduction in freedom? You do afterall live in this fantastic country where you have enormous freedom. You could forego a bit of it without really losing out at all, couldn’t you? For example, if Australia had a two-child policy or monetary disincentives to have kids or fuel 25 cents a litre dearer or a higher tax on food in order to better protect our agricultural lands, etc, etc, etc, would it really put you out??

Bottom line: if we are to really deal with population growth and sustainability, we will need to pay a bit more for it than we now do, and that will mean some small reductions in freedom for the average person.

The alternative is your position – an abject no to any loss of freedom, no to any personal cost, and consequently just a continuation of the same old disastrous path to oblivion.

We interfere with everything, this thread tells us we may be going to consider engineering future children.
But world wide birth control is not worth the effort?
Some blame consumerism, yet that is the basic building block that keeps us out of the caves.
We need to look at the products of over population.
Starvation, needless war such as the African Continent.
And, like it or not some think the problem of population is best served by major war every now and again.

I think that we are both reasonably clear on each other's position, Ludwig. The main point of divergence seems to be the concept of natural attrition.

>>Of course any reduction in population would be by natural attrition. I mean, how else would it be done?<<

You then go ahead and describe a requirement for direct interference with the lives of strangers, to achieve this.

>>But if it is to happen by natural attrition, obviously the birdthrate has got to be lowered below the deathrate.<<

Who does the lowering?

>>For many decades the regime of aid has been too short-sighted. It has led to greatly increased population growth<<

Ummm, that was precisely the point I was making. Glad you agree.

>>But it desperately needs to be balanced by family planning aid and all manner of assistance for poor countries with rapid population growth to reduce their growth rates.<<

So how exactly will that work? Use condoms, or we cut off your food supply? You see, however you go about this, you are in danger of using thoroughly unethical methods to achieve your result.

The reality is, unfortunately, that the most effective form of population control is to bring these people out of poverty, not through cargo-cult food-aid, but by developing their country's economy. Unfortunately, most of the do-gooder brigade are also implacably against the concept of free trade, and globalism in general. A dichotomy that they will never be able to resolve.

So the sad fact is that we have charitied ourselves into a corner. We stop sending them aid, and we are complicit in genocide. We continue to send them aid, and the despots who run their countries stash the loot in Switzerland, and continue to oppress their people.

>>Can’t you see that your freedoms HAVE been reduced quite a bit over the last, say, three decades?<<

Come on. That is surely the worst possible reason to extinguish even more of them?

<< Who does the lowering? >>

I would have thought it obvious, Pericles.

Governments do the lowering. It is afterall a fundamental role of government to protect and improve the quality of life of its citizens and make sure that the future is bright.

International pressure gets applied to governments that don’t do this. Aid and diplomatic efforts from the rich countries gets strongly channelled towards assisting governments that don’t have the wherewithal or commonsense to do this. International agreements are struck.

But of course, the will has got to be there in the first place. It isn’t…. and that is the huge stumbling block.

The methodology is not a stumbling block at all. The things that need to be done are clear, as I elucidated earlier.

And NONE of it needs to be draconian. It would all be done via better education, improved living conditions / quality of life / standard of living, the implementation of financial incentives, etc.

Even at this late stage (and a global population of 7 million and rapidly growing is arguably pretty late in the picture), I believe we can still avoid massive catastrophe if we put our collective minds to it.

<< You see, however you go about this, you are in danger of using thoroughly unethical methods to achieve your result. >>

No I don’t see it.

The trick is to work out just how to do it and get stuck into it, and not be negative about it – not be put off by the fear that it is too hard or that some people might be disadvantaged a little more than others or whatever.

<< So the sad fact is that we have charitied ourselves into a corner >>

Yes!

But the cause is not lost, if we can just get a reprioritisation of aid happening.

It is a crying shame that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t see fit to lead the way here. It has largely supported the terribly lop-sided antisustainability-oriented aid regime, which is most unfortunate.

continued

I wrote:

>>Can’t you see that your freedoms HAVE been reduced quite a bit over the last, say, three decades?<<

Pericles, you replied:

Come on. That is surely the worst possible reason to extinguish even more of them?

We’ll get a MUCH bigger extinguishment of freedoms if rapid population growth continues compared to any loss of freedoms associated with efforts to stop it! That’s for sure!