Yes we are still talking growth but ignoring the warnings.
We are past our manageable population now.
Symptoms tell us this if we only look.
Refugee movements world wide, far worse than Australia's current problems, and getting worse daily.
Starvation and it too is about to get far worse.
Floods and droughts, something we always have to live with, are reducing the northern hemispheres corn wheat and grain production this and next year to critical levels.
Western Nations , that is us, each of us, must stop the smug thought Nature will fix it.
The thought out future planning for great numbers of us, included the thought millions will die in war famine or plague is sickening.
And if it took place?
Based on current refusal to act we would start all over again to rebuild our numbers to critical mass then do it over again.

Ahh… eat, drink and be merry today. For tomorrow is fraught with trouble!

By what criterion do we say the world is overpopulated? While we have unproductive people whose philosophy of eat, drink and be merry at others expense is being normalised.

Josephus,
Not every country is over populated but the concern is for those countries that cannot produce enough food to sustain their population. Some of these countries endure regular famines and many die. So I guess that is the criteria upon which population judgements are made.

Belly,
We and the UN need to be far more active in promoting family planning in famine suseptable countries and the provission of the means of birth control. Iran and Thailand have demonsrated what can be done and we need to expand on their experiences.

95% of the world population don't even consider the fact that there are too many people in the world. They are only concerned with their own family and creating that. The big picture never enters their heads. When governments stop subsidising breeding and religions stop encouraging it, will be the time when perhaps sense will prevail.

Dear Belly,

Many people still make the assumption that human
beings will always be able to use the "ultimate
resource" of their ingenuity to find new technologies
to exploit the environment, and that the world will
therefore be able to support many more people, just
as it always has in the past.

This is a comfortable assumption, especially for those
who don't have to eke out an exitence on a daily basis in
an impoverished, overpopulated country. However eventually
we have to realise that the planet lacks the resources
to support many billions of people at anything remotely
resembling the standard of living in developed countries.

Nor is it easy to see how the environment can tolerate
the amount of pollution involved in a world consisting
entirely of heavily populated and fully industrialised
societies. The best that can be said at present is that
the demographic fate of the world and its peoples hangs in
a precarious balance.

Further to Banjo’s comments, Belly we need to set a good example here in Oz.

The best thing that we can do for our country is also the best thing we can do for the world.

That is:: stabilise our population and achieve a sustainable society.

And we should be much more pro-active in our international aid efforts, especially in the realms of family planning and all the other things that help countries reach a sustainable lifestyle and population level.

Consider this
Global replacement rate is 2.33 children per woman.
USA = 2.4, UK = 1.7, Aus = 1.76 (2000-05), so telling people in the industrialised world to "take responsibility" is really pointing the finger at the third world where the birthrate is beyond replacement rates.

In pointing the finger at the third world, claiming 'education' is the solution & presenting rich educated Indian girls deciding on one child as evidence is ingenuine. Since only the well off can afford education, that evidence rather points to the effect of material security on family size, not necessarily education.

Large families provide the only security the poor can achieve, risky as that strategy is for them. But their desperate need for security questions how the first world exploits the third world to provide the standard of living WE demand.

India uses 1.3ha of the earth / person - we use between 3 & 4 times that, but sustainability (and justice!) demands we reduce that to 2ha ... but it is more pleasant to focus on their ignorance, isn't it.

We haven't got time to be going down wrong paths blaming the poor for the state of the planet or its future!

Selling a lie is often about telling enough truth to slip in the lie unnoticed from which you can profit.

Just thought I needed to say something

Chris Baulman
@landrights4all

Landrights 4 all,
Chriss, No one has mentioned India, I suggest you have a look at Iran and Thailand where government promoted family planning has reduced the birthrates from around 6.5 per woman to about 1.7.

Then compare Thailands economy to that of the Phillipines and see the result.

Western countrie are not to blame for developing countries having high birthrates, but we can do our bit to educate and provide the means for family planning.

The main reason for high birth rates in Third World countries is partly due to the high infant mortality rate and social necessity.

Without the benefits that we take for granted, people in such countries need children who will look after them in their old age. They expect that some will die and some will move away so they need to increase the odds for their own survival.

Unless there is an alternative this will never change.

The only remedies that are known to work are the old standards of War, Pestilence and Famine. Choose wisely.

Landrights4all,
Below is a sitr that compares thailands economy to that of the Phillipines, you may find it interesting.

Or you can google family planning in Thailand and/or Iran. there are many site giving info.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/9489/family-planning-in-thailand-ph

I am not on any crusade to save the world, but I am interested in preventing people dieing from starvation.

Aside from the draconian policies of say China, education in family planning appears to be the best i have come across to date.

Wobbles,
I suggest you look at the experiences of Thailand and Iran. You can google family planning for each country.

Not only has government promoted schemes worked, there are economic benefits for both the poor families and the country. this then enables the country then to spend more funds on things such as education and health.

Try the link I gave in my last post.

Don't let anyone forget that we also depend on the younger to support
the aged in their dotage.
It is just that we have a more bureaucratic system to deliver the same result.
As it is a financial system, we risk very difficult times with pensions.

However, birth control is unlikely to act quick enough to avoid a very
high level of starvation. China is currently having significant social
problems with some 100s millions of unmarried men because of the one
child policy which caused the death or abortion of females.

Josephus your shot at Ludwig is wrong and uncalled for.
Of all posters he is on record for the concerns I put here.
Snake well said as is the truth for Banjo and Lexi.
Given our population [let us please not get in to climate change] in 1750, was 1 Billion.
And stands at 7 Billion now, given if we slam the breaks on population growth hard right now, we will still reach 9 Billion in less than 300 years from that date.
Proving we are in trouble,I do not think under our current system we can control births.
Further too many, as has been said do not wish to.
Question, given the growth time from 1 Billion to 7 Billion, no maths genius me,when will we double current population, and then double again?
Are we content to count our selves and loved ones as survivors in what ever reduces population?
If we in this one country can not resolve boat people troubles, how will we tell mums and dads to limit child numbers? ,and make it work.
Is it not plan silly to pay mums to have children who will live in times of food shortages so bad they may die of starvation.
Banjo, this will get me kicked about but it always has taken tough choices from tough men and women to survive.
A two children law for the west, no social welfare for a third ever.
Not tax breaks for any family breaking that law 5% increase in taxes.
No aid or loans of any nature or help for ANY country not signing up for two child policy in third world and ANY country.
Without effort and results , laugh if you wish, we will one day have a world dictatorship and see our freedoms die.
Current view growth is good is foolish and clearly untrue a day just has to come that ends population growth, be it war famine or disease.
We do not want that surely

I did it! getting old read first page then posted!
Went back read the lot lets be clear I blame no single nation, we can, if you wish, say how good the west is.
But let us not forget the fact we consume much more than our share.
The answer is in acting as one not devision.
I believe the population growth is stunning by the year 2100.
And we doom our selves if we do not do the maths and consider that.
I came up within average population growth rate of just over 450.000 a year but remembered it is not true .
Growth increases each year,maths was not strong in my years at school passed emptying rubbish bin and handing out free milk with flying colors.

Belly,
I think you are right unfortunately. Iran and Thailand have shown the way but all too late for many in some countries. should have begun 30 years ago and even now some are reluctant to see the solid evidence. Religions are to blame also.

You and I may not see the end result of over population but our decendants will. There will come a time when limits by law will have to be placed on births. The baby bonus has to be the silliest idea ever and now no government would be game to get rid of it. We continue high immigration in Aus again to our peril all the while reducing our most productive land. That is stupid

Glad I won't be around when the devastating losses really occur

There is a graph of population and oil production.
The graph for oil starts in the late 1800s and rises expotentially to
today. On the same graph is world population, it tracks oil production EXACTLY !

The reason is that prior to oil energy for food production was sourced
from animals and for a short time previously, from steam powered
machines such as traction engines.
As people moved into industry and towns and oil powered farm machinery
became common food production became cheaper and farms much larger.
This enable more children to lead healthier longer lives and the
population tracked the oil production.

As oil production gets more expensive and difficult to produce, food
will become more expensive and the worlds population will compete
with their wallets for food.

The population level will follow the oil production decline.

There is one possible way out of this, if an alternative energy
source with the equivalent energy density can be found.
The chemists are telling us that this is impossible. Are they right ?

Bazz,
As the cost of food production rises it will have an effect on how much food aid western nations will be able to give to countries in famine. Add to this the declining harvest from our seas.

In the 'great famine' in China, which was as recent as 1960, it is estimated that 40-50 million died and that only lasted a few years. People ate all sorts of things in effort to stay alive, bark, grass and even dirt. Canabalism was not unheard of and human placenta is considered a delicasy in some parts. I could not comtemplate eating animal placenta let alone that from humans. Hunger changes how we view foods.

Makes one wonder just when the world will wake up and see the problem.

I can easily see why China is aquiring farmland in Aus and Africa.

I believe such death rates will be frequent occurances in some countries.

Banjo,
Previous human experience was that famine was caused by wx such as
droughts. These are normally short term, say one to 12 years, but what
we will see is an energy, and fertiliser, caused famine for which there
may be no solution and it will be permanent.

That changes everything and there is no previous human experience.
It will of course be tied to the "End of Growth".

Belly

It is a silly question to pose as it implies that the human population can only be determined by an executive decision. The current population growth is determined that way, because the elite in many countries deny their citizens access to birth control. Were such access available, the worlds population would be stable or in decline.

A better question to pose would be "Should the worlds population be determined by a few or by the free choice of everyone who is fertile?".

one minute its obesity and the next its overpopulation. Now that the gw scam has been exposed we need a new scare for the marxist to take the money off the masses.

"Should the worlds population be determined by a few or by the free choice of everyone who is fertile?".
Fester,
I'm inclined to let those who can feed their families have the choice.

runner,

"one minute its obesity and the next its overpopulation..."

Sometimes it's both simultaneously....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-23/obesity-produces-diabetes-epidemic-in-india/4148616

It is none of those I told you, it is energy to produce food.

No in fact it is not any of the above.
Do we all note those who say it is not a problem?
One of us, maybe more has a head for Mathematics, I clearly do not.
I have looked again at my efforts to get annual growth rate average .
And based only on that predict, with surely, how long after we reach 9 Billion to double that.
I think it is about[rough guess] 180 years, but may be wrong.
Bazz et al, with respect oil/food/ ext are symptoms of the problem, surely not the problem.
Runner,do you say growth can be endless? is your self assurance miss placed, do you read at all?
We see here a view that is against us acting, look at festers and others views.
Attack the mail man not the issue.
We must confront China has done it, we all can but all or nothing.
Why de population half the world so the other half can populate the whole?

Belly said;
I have looked again at my efforts to get annual growth rate average .
And based only on that predict, with surely, how long after we reach 9 Billion to double that.
I think it is about[rough guess] 180 years, but may be wrong.

The point I was making was that population will follow the availability
of energy to produce food. There would probably be a generation lag
in the response of population.

Liquid fuels are used to produce food as well as fertilisers.
The energy density of petrol and diesel gives such an advantage that
there is literally nothing that can be used instead.
I have suggested that tractors and harvesters and trucks could be
powered by overhead wires. Quite a job to do that on a 1000 hectare
farm, I am sure you will agree. Siemens are doing some work on that
for long distance trucks.
It will work but will need nuclear or coal fired electricity.

Have you noticed in all the chatter about closing Kurnell refinery
no one has suggested that they will not be modernising the refinery
because they will not have the crude oil to refine ?
We would be out of crude before they were finished.
Australian crude oil declined by 14% last year.
How long can we keep that up ?

The Shell refinery in Sydney is next and Brisbane is to follow.

Bazz I am afraid your focus on the end of oil is a bit out there.
Population growth bloke has nothing to do with oil.
Surely you know some large population centers use far less than the west? but produce far more humans.
Coal once fueled so very much, I am willing to bet few saw Oil taking its place.
And even fewer know with certainty what will replace oil.
I have avoided the taunts,that this subject is lefty propaganda trying to fill in for a lost? climate change debate.
Fact is the evidence is before us, no room for doubt, we are over populated and continuing to increase numbers much faster than before.
Capitalism, the only system we have that works, increasingly asks for increased productivity, wealth, growth, population.
At what point, it must happen, will it collapse?
Is dictatorship ahead or mass deaths world wide.
Closure of our oil refinery's is not related to shortage.
It is profit driven as our refinery's are old and not efficient.
Population too is driven by the need for increasing consumers and profit not the planets health.

Belly, if you don't believe me, will you believe Julia's government ?

http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=1243

You can get the original document from the parliament house web site.
Population and oil production together followed an exponential growth
from late 1800 to today.
You said; Population growth bloke has nothing to do with oil.
It has everything to do with oil. For each calorie of food we eat it
takes 10 calories of oil to produce it !

These are inescapable facts and the implications are we are going to
need a major change in how the world operates.
You are right about how it will affect capitalism. There will be major
changes to the way we do business and most business will become local.

I will try and find that graph of oil & population for you.

Here we are Belly, this not the article I remembered but it is saying
much the same thing.
The implications of exponential growth are really mind boggling.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6924

http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/1269848200-FDI%20Strategic%20Analysis%20Paper%2024%20February%202010.pdf
This link is complex, and does not support in full my view.
It in fact does quite the opposite, if you wish it to.
A warning of mass starvation starting some 40 years ago is in the link .
And we avoided that by the green revolution, increased food production.
An open mind will explore further the link shows clearly, under developed country's are the problem.
And not in the link but there if we look, are symptoms, not the problem.
Refugees, in big numbers for us , but small in compassion to what the potential is becoming.
The world seems to be heading for problems we can not begin to imagine.
Surely we can not sit back and say we are controlling our population so it is not our problem.
If we did? who would inhabit this world in 200 years?

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Bazz this link gives growth figures that stun, and should frighten.
And shows as your peak oil nears, population growth continues to accelerate.
It is my view, peak oil is but a symptom, not controller, of over population.

I see water as the pivoting point in human population growth. As water drinking quantity & quality gradually decline all that goes with it hand in hand i.e. food production will keep pace & decease will be the catalyst. Just look at the polluted waterways around the globe. Desalination is definitely not the answer as it is excessively power consuming on a large scale & also excessively polluting.
The only thing that works is also the only thing people don't want to know about,restraint.

Yes, of course Individual, if water became restricted population must fall to match.
However if energy was still available it would be used to distill sea water.
Belly said;
And shows as your peak oil nears, population growth continues to accelerate.

Actually the peak started in 2006 and we are still on it.
The plateau at the peak will last for a few years before decline sets in.
The population will keep increasing for a while yet, its known as overshoot.
It may overshoot for a generation. Sooner or later the cost of food
will start to cause malnutrition and that will reduce fertility.

If I may give an example that impressed me. Figures from memory.

A farmer with a tractor and disc plough frame can plough 200 acres in a day.
A farmer with a horse and single furrow plough can plough 5 acres in a day.

Don't hold me to those exact figures, but the principle is what matters.
We have perhaps 1% of the population are farmers, we will need 20 times that number.

Australia is to become totally dependant on imported liquid fuels.
We will need to transition to natural gas vehicles as soon as we wake
up and stop selling off our gas.
Tell me, how will the farmer feed us if the Strait or Hormuz was
blocked tomorrow ?
True the 40% odd percent of our use that we produce could be rationed
for the use of farmers and food distribution.
Tough titties for the rest of us.

The problem is that we have $100s trillions tied up in liquid fuel
machines and other plant, not least farming.
It has been calculated that there is not enough finance available
to convert a significant proportion to natural gas.
That is to say nothing of the distribution network cost.

Bazz,
In addition to what you say about fuel cost and availability, we do not have sufficient productive land available on which to grow more food.

As fuel cost rise farmers will concentrate on the crops that are most cost effective for them and there may not be sufficient food available to give much to countries in famine.

US, and I assume Canada, is now in drought so there is a shortage of grain. How much would be able to be sent to Nth Africa if required?

Last night on a news segment it was said that the drought in US will cause a rise in the prices of bread, eggs and chicken here in Aus. Now in our drought the cost of chook feed rose dramatically and never seemed to have dropped much since. What I do not understand is how a drought in US makes our grain prices rise again. We are still exporting grain. There is no shortage of grain here now.

One other thing that needs consideration is that there is little long term grain storage facilities here to get us over if needed. Every harvest heaps of grain can be seen in the open under plastic. Waste from this must be substantial.

Well Banjo, we may not have enough suitable land to increase production
to say nothing of water.
I suspect if we are to act in our own interest we should not try to
grow more than we can eat ourselves. We also should not import food.
We need to halt immigration as we may well be approaching maximum
population that the country can sustain.
However we do need to export grain as that does give us a buffer for
those times of drought when production falls.
We do have to have enough in times of drought to feed ourselves.

Food is sold on an international market and that is why the world price
is reflected in our local prices. It is just one large market.
After all a farmer needs the best price he can get.

All this raises another point, as liquid fuels rise in cost the
freight costs for grain will rise alongside it. I don't know what
proportion of the cost is freight for bulk shipping so it may not
be very significant. However as there is a diesel shortage in Asia
refineries are producing more diesel and less bunker fuel and so
ships are having to buy a mixture of diesel and bunker fuel which is
a lot more expensive.

It all gets very complex doesn't it ?

As we charge away from the threads intended path, changing it to chicken or the egg, or oil.
May I ask this?
Is it not true one of my links said we would start to starve to death by 1970?
For the reasons said here not enough farming land/ability to grow food?
Bazz on his hobby horse ignores his own words, he says we started peak oil in 2008.
But ignores population growth continued its steady rise in that year, those before and after it.
If the worlds population TO DAY, was 1 Billion would we have peak oil?
Food shortages
Refugees
even Global warming?
Are the above the problem or a symptom of over population.
If I ignore my belief, that each is a symptom, will population in under developed country's not still rise even as it does now?
How much impact can peak oil have on third world country's using a tenth of what the west does.
How do I find the fuel cap on a Donkey cart?

Belly,
The issues bazz and I have been talking about are the result of over population.

The cost of fuel for growing and storage/cartage of food is directly related to the demand by higher populations. As is the cost of obtaining seafood. So we are not getting away from the original subject.

If we could solve the problem of overpopulation, the problems of food supply and fuel cost/availability would diminish, simply because of lowering demand.

What is required, and urgently IMO, is for the UN and governments of famine susseptable countries begin to address the human carrying capacity of their countries. If not wide spread deaths will occur, it is only a question of when.

If the current drought in US become widespread over the Northern Hemisphere there will be a shortage of food. If Nth Africa is affected by famine at the same time many deaths will occur, much higher than normally expected.

You, and some others, may put the cause down to human caused climate change. I do not, I consider climate change to be just part of mother natures grand scheme.

However this will not alter the fact that many will die of starvation simply because we are over populated.

Banjo;
If by magic the world population stabilised at its present level
because of contraception etc everything else being equal, starvation
would still set in as oil production declined.
Energy is fundamental to everything.
Fitting out farm machinery and food distribution for CNG would
certainly stretch out the time but the cost would be very high and
would push the cost of food up further.
Just how long would CNG last if we used it at the same rate as we use oil ?
Not very long I suspect. I don't know the answer to that.
Someone in the US said they would run out of CNG in a couple of years
if they were able to get it fast enough.

Frankly there are no easy answers.
Many will have to starve, I am afraid that is realism.

To give a Idea of the size of the problem.

The International Grains Council now predicts, world wide

6 million tons less corn
500,000 tons less wheat This is all less than last year.

I do not know exactly what this means in peoples lives, but it seems to me that some are going to be very hungry. There are more mouths to feed this year as well.

What happens if the drought continues next year?

Problem = Too many people

http://www.un.org/popin/data.html
This link too is of use in learning about the depth and width of the problem.
Yes Bazz as I have said, the problems you highlight are the children/product of over population, not the reason for population growth.
Banjo, surely you will agree the term *Mother Nature* is a man made one?
No nice old girl, or any one for that matter is watching over us.
Global warming, if it has any role in this thread, then in my view it would be as a side product of over population.
Seemingly,think about it, in yours it is just a natural event we can not avoid, for that reason I would leave it out, we can do some thing about population.
Graphs exist forecasting end of oil, using only 20% of todays use, and show population while slowing, still growing every year.
We need to see this can not go on forever, growth today may see mass deaths tomorrow.
I think the biggest threat humanity has faced so far is this one.

What happens if the drought continues next year?
Banjo,
Many of those who have next to nothing now will perish with the children they can't feed going first. The experts in making money out of other peoples' misery will get even richer whilst politicians the world over will continue to blame each other instead of working together for all.
Unions will ask for more money & businesses will charge more money to compensate for the union demands. And so the circus called society will rehearse for the next show.
Education will continue to prevent young from gaining common sense. The stupid will continue to advocate growth & the population will grow.

Belly said;
Graphs exist forecasting end of oil, using only 20% of todays use, and
show population while slowing, still growing every year.

Do you happen to remember where you saw that graph ?
I know what it is like when someone challenges you on something you
saw perhaps a year earlier, it is a pain isn't it ?

However it goes so far against what we can do today I would like to
see their reasoning.
It would have to mean 100% farmers I think.

Belly,
I noted very early in this thread that you did not want a debate on AGW so have avoided it. I am sure there will be plenty opportunity for us to both air our views on AGW.

It is frustating to see the obvious that people will starve in large numbers in some countries. When it has been shown that birthrates can be dramaticly lowered without the need for draconian means. Not only that but poor families and developing countries will both benefit economicly from reducing the birthrates.

The link you gave is all UN information about population, so the UN and governments are aware but reluctant to do anything much about it.

If we take our own country as an example, as our population grows we will require more and more food to feed our population. That will mean there is less for export and less to give in food aid to countries that are in famine. It is a pity really when it could have been prevented.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/pop952.doc.htm
Bazz this is not it, however if you goggle world population you will find it.
This is UN stuff and worth a read.
Evidence seems to say even in food shortages and raised deaths we will produce more than we see die.
Banjo, global warming, well if you are right, man has nothing to do with it, nothing at all, it will still impact on our future, even if we can do nothing about it.
I never wanted it to blind us to this problem, one the evidence is unquestioned on.
I now take back some views on oil, the chart hopefully Bazz will find and post is as I said, and clearly written by what I see as my opponent.
It talks of 70% needed renewable energy and limits the possibility to 50%
And warns of a 50 year recession! starting now.
I have opened many threads looking for it again but hard work.
We one day will be confronted by a threat, not the numbers, that is obvious, but who will fix it.
A Dictatorship is a possibility believe me a world one.
I now return to searching for that link

http://www.businessinsider.com/an-optimistic-energygdp-forecast-to-2050-based-on-data-since-1820-2012-7
Bazz this I think is it, at least haveing seen it, knowing I read it and that it in part supports your views not mine.
I post it in good faith, if it turns out not to be will try again.
The issue is complex and massive.
I hope people do not let my thoughts about future world dictatorship put me in the rat bag basket.
I , increasingly, fear our inability to actually get things done.
World hunger financial reforms/accountability, wars and privately owned country's.
Powers of veto stopping the UN from being other than useless.
I fear wars and hate in religions names and in the end think matters such as this one, like it or not.
Will lead us away from freedom to one world government.
And after ten generations, see North Korea, no one will know any better.

Belly,
Thanks for the link. I had a problem with the site, it kept
reloading. However I had the authors blog at the top so I went there
and the article is at the top.

http://ourfiniteworld.com/

Cannot read it now as I am off to Dural for the home brew meeting.
I have read Gail's writing previously and she has a very good
reputation for accurate concise writing.
73

The people of many countries are literally un-governable, Australia included. Why else would we have a hung parliament ?
When half the population see sense but the other half can't or refuses to then you have an ungovernable people.
The growth mentality must be nipped in the butt if we want to have at least a glimmer of hope for mankind. Don't the pollution pictures from China send out a loud enough message ?
Are people actually more than stupid ? Technology was hailed as the great saviour but now it becomes evident that it is the opposite because people don't use it for the right reason. I see it everyday here. When computers first appeared everyone breathed a sigh of relief because it was to eliminate paper work. Bureaucracy however, hell-bent on not giving up it's lurks & perks has turned the superfluity of paper into an evil trail that follows us everywhere.

Interestingly enough, individual, China is going through the same industrial pollution as did Britain 200 years ago. It's only the growth of bureaucracy and government control that allowed Britain and Europe(and the West in general)to have their industry and their environment as well (their cake and eat it too) Albeit, the original Industrial Revolution sprang up amidst libertarianism and laissez faire, while China's is guided by strong-arm government with a much greater population.

Australia is eminently governable because we have fashioned a social democracy which rewards the drones with a modicum of comfort and addicts them to always desiring more ("because they're worth it"). They will overlook any number of of shady bureaucratic encumbrances as long as it doesn't interfere with their basic comfort and petty aspiration.....which is why they tend not to take to the streets at the drop of a hat.

Poirot,
Yes, China is mirroring Britains industrial revolution but a massively multiplied extent. Also, don't forget India is hard on China's heels, another massiveley multiplied scenario. Then we have a massive chemical component now which wasn't there 200 years ago. Whilst I agree with your assessment I think we have sufficient evidence that the british revolution combined with the industrial revolution of the world that followed & has brought us to where we're now is already dipping the scales & the scales ain't certainly dipping in our favour.
In order to stop the polluters we must get the consumers off the road not introduce some idiotic tax. The average westerner creates about as much pollution in his whole life as an Arab Prince does in about an hour. I use about 2000 litres of Diesel a year. A tourist going overseas uses 355 litres of aviation fuel per 7 hour flight. Give or take 20-30 litres for freight & different aircraft type. Now how many flights a day are there out/to Australia alone ? Add to this air conditioning, goods of comfort, frivolity goods etc etc.
what I'm getting at is that as long as Joe Average demands all the things it is he who is to blame for pollution not the manufacturer. No manufacturer would produce anything that doesn't sell.
Check on how much defence exercises use up in fuel & food etc. Sport is another massive contributor to pollution but the organisers want more people though the gates.
You see, it's an evil wheel that keeps our pursuit for happiness (money) going. No-one really wants to fix the brakes whilst they're sitting on the bandwagon. If you reduce the population you also reduce happiness for many.

The thing is Poirot, it seems to me that you would like us all to focus on the big picture, which in the real world, is not what people do.

Everyone is focussing on their own small patch of the real world.

Poirot wants the best for herself and her brood. The Chinese want much
the same, so do most Australians.

The real world is simply a multiplication of all of this, ie. lots of
little people with lots of dreams. Add it all up and the effects are profound.

I agree, Yabby.

I was merely offering an amateur commentary on the status quo. I don't expect people to voluntarily limit themselves. That would take wisdom over and above ordinary instincts and desires - and probably asking a bit much.

Yabby and each of the posts proves/highlights to me at least a truth, humanity can not focus on fixing issues.
I am reluctant to side step the issue, but current state of Australian politics is extreme, it will not be repeated soon.
WHY? impending death or near death of the greens, a growing reluctance to send independents to Parliament, bought about by those differences between two sides.
Hence, *never trust politicians* my strong belief, an offer of one world one government/plan, will become a rat trap.
We will one day walk in to then watch changes that let our freedoms go.
Over population is nothing to do with our individual problems.
I note under developed country's are the worst, do we stop food aid without birth control?
Or look at belief that breeding kids is an act of belief , even if most die of starvation and illness.
A start would be a UN that has power to move freely in any country.
Funded by the west and developed country's to help in health and food education and housing.
Costs? a benefit is far more important than costs, giving life in home lands hope and freedom can benefit every one.
Extreme action, nothing less will change this, Bazz I agree the link is complex the problem is too.
My AGM last Friday, our hobby is in need of numbers.

I have always maintained that aid should be given to those who are prepared to help themselves & to those who simply can't help themselves but are willing to participate in birth control. Rather than sending money we should supply tools & materials as these are far more practical & more difficult to syphon away by officials.
Aid to poor countries in the form of tools etc would stimulate our economy also through manufacturing rather than just money getting stuck on the fingers of bureaucrats & being spent on travel for full of self importance celebrities.
No aid should be in money full stop. If any country doesn't appreciate goods then I'm afraid they'll just have to do better themselves.

By the way, Australia has been giving 1.2 million Dollars a day to New Guinea since that country's independence in 1975. What have they got to show for it ? Why not have an experiment for a week without that aid & give the money to australian battlers. See where it does more good.

<< Australia has been giving 1.2 million Dollars a day to New Guinea since that country's independence in 1975 >>

Indi, could you provide a bit more information about this?

PNG should have been weaned off of Australian financial support years ago.

And yes, this sort of money should definitely be given to ‘Australian battlers’ instead!

Is the world overpopulated?

Only because of our values and the way we live.

For instance Japan has a population density of 350 people per km2 compared to just 3 for Australia.

My state of Victoria has stripped 80% of its forest cover away, a good portion sold as wood chip to the Japanese.

Japan on the other hand retains over 65% of its forest cover and still manages to house its population, support a massive industrial base, and grow most of its foodstuff including being able to maintain a ban on any unprocessed rice imports.

Over population is a concern for the unthinking.

csteele once more and as usual we differ.
I remain so very glad I do not live in the world you do.
This thread was not meant to be about lifestyles or miss use of grants.
It was to focus on if and why we are over populated.
Links have been many/complex and informative.
Rather than highlight Australia, leaving out our lands very nature, water good soil human carrying capacity we could benefit by seeing the problem.
Clearly almost every link and most from the UN , gives evidence the west is consuming far more, far, far, more, but contributing very much less to population growth.
Starvation is evident, annually, any balanced look will show those drought stricken nations are over populated, given lands ability to carry, a stock term but relevant, current number of humans.
Symptoms today and bound to increase are, refugees, hunger, starvation, water, shortages, extreme poverty, I could continue.
But in truth am unable to digest your view those who are concerned are? well proud to be very different.

Ludwig,
Just look up aust aid to PNG & start reading. Even better, speak with people in the game for less official but more accurate info.

http://www.pngbuai.com/300socialsciences/foreign-aid/PNG-Future-of-Foreign-Aid-in-PNG.html

Dear Belly,

I am very familiar with your personal concerns;

“Refugee movements world wide, far worse than Australia's current problems, and getting worse daily.”

“Refugees, in big numbers for us , but small in compassion (sic-how apt!) to what the potential is becoming.”

“Food shortages
Refugees
even Global warming?
Are the above the problem or a symptom of over population.”

But the facts just don't support those concerns. The bulk of our refugees come from war torn nations, the great famines of early last century occurred in nations that are now exporting more grain than Australia, and birth rates are diving world wide.

The path forward is pretty clear, raising people from want serves to drop birth rates. It also makes them more receptive to those actions of governments like Thailand and Iran that Banjo illustrated.

The changes that have been achieved in the last 50 years have been astounding and extremely positive. Hans Rosling's TED talk is getting old now but it tells the incredible story of how many of the doomsday scenarios have been put to bed so quickly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

Obviously they still get rehashed as they are now but they have lost much of their sting.

We should be celebrating and building on those achievements. We have a fair idea what works and what doesn't. Our aid should indeed be directed at raising people above want, not only because it has a dramatic effect on population growth but because it shows we are not “small in compassion”.

csteele,
You forgot about the 45-50 million that died in China during the great famine. 1958-62.

According to wikipedia there are 6 million kids die each year from starvation and, in addition, there are 92.5 million people malnourished each year. So, to my mind we are not doing very well.

WHO says lack of food is the greatest health risk humans face.

On the contrary, Thailand found the provission of the means and education in family planning was the catylist for better economic conditions for both poor people and the country.

The ratio of people per square Kilometre is missleading, try Canada or Alaska, what is important is the birthrates in famine susseptable countries.

Dissappointed this morning to see that Iran is to cut its family planning programme for political reasons. They have shown state sponsored family planning does work.

It is my honestly held view, one I intend to hold on to, csteele comes loaded with a defensive slant.
And a wish to support, even against truth, those of the middle east and others of the Muslim faith.
Even if they are not under attack.
Very often we are told we are biased or bigoted, even blind.
To say the world is not over populated, by inference can not be, is to posses at least one of those charges.
And as every farmer understands, different paddocks have different carrying capacity.
Given India's number of people per htc this country would see deaths in the millions.
csteele you, if you wish, can continue to insult my views.
However do not neglect to take on board very few, agree with much of what you say.
If humanity is ever to become one, together we must work to limit population, limit hunger and want.
I see in your view ample evidence to say we should stop all aid throw our hands up and say, if there is no problem, let this mother nature thing take its course.

Dear Banjo,

The Chinese famine was the reason for my time frame of 50 years.

I will concede though that the sub-continent Bangladeshi Famine of 1974 (1973-77) which claimed over a million lives was within this period.

Yet this occurred during a time when average food grain production was at a local peak.

While monsoonal flooding was the catalyst the reasons for the extent of the famine were seen as stemming from distribution failures;

“The first failure was internal: the specific configuration of the state rationing system and the market resulted in speculative hoarding by farmers and traders and a consequent rise in prices. The second failure was external: the US had withheld 2.2 million tonnes of food aid to 'ensure that it abandoned plans to try Pakistani war criminals'. And a year later, when Bangladesh was faced with severe monsoons and imminent floods, the then US Ambassador to Bangladesh made it abundantly clear that the US probably could not commit food aid because of Bangladesh's policy of exporting jute to Cuba. And by the time Bangladesh succumbed to the American pressure, and stopped jute exports to Cuba, the food aid in transit was "too late for famine victims".”
Wikipedia

Dear Belly,

You wrote; “I see in your view ample evidence to say we should stop all aid throw our hands up and say, if there is no problem, let this mother nature thing take its course.”

Most certainly not. Doomsday predictions about over population are only credible if we ignore the facts and are prepared to believe we are 'unthinking' which I do not. There has been a great deal of work done and lessons learnt on how to support the growing number of people on this planet without subjecting tens of millions of them to famines on an annual basis.

Though I am the first to see unfettered globalisation as often destructive the freeing of markets has allowed the two great population centres of the world, China and India, to become more than self sufficient in food production. It would be hard to see a famine in China occurring again, in my lifetime at least, due to the reserves the nation holds.

Africa by rights really should be the world's bread basket. With planning, assistance, investment, education and insistence on good governance it may well be so in the future. Its problems are not insurmountable for thinking people. Get these things right and population issues will sort themselves out

Hi csteele,
I, for one, do agree with your thinking on this issue - I believe it is a matter of lifestyles & organisation, not of population. This is in accordance with my post of 26.7

I do agree with Belly however that there are not many who care to think this way - in fact who feel threatened by it. I would like to connect more if you are interested - perhaps via @landrights4all on Twitter?

http://www.populationelephant.com/PEQuotes.html
The link above gives support for my views from great men of our past recent and long ago.
I, very often ,fear the edge cutters, those I even speak of here, who seemingly are against any action, on any issue.
I see csteele,with certainty in your post evidence as I pointed out early in the thread, humanity is stopped from achieving anything, by those who will one day, force a dictator ship on us all.
How else can humanity end hunger wars any international problem, we white ant every effort to fix anything.

If one looks at the countries which are overpopulated, they indicate indeed that "sex is the opera of the poor." Their standards of living and hope for a future need to be lifted.

The West needs to tame itself from the lust of conspicuous consumption. Ironically, it is often those who have more than everything they need, who complain about population control and limited resources.

Then then there is "big business" along with shareholders, who fall into mourning if their sales of latest products, cars, white goods, etc. don't meet projected numbers. Also, as told to me, many products have "built in obsolescence."

Perhaps research in hand with with business should look into ways of making cheap alternative appliances that can be used (perhaps with solar power) in third world countries ... and by those environmentally conscious elsewhere.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/how-many-people-can-the-world-support/
ok, yes know I am getting a bit to in to the subject.
Will give it a break, but this link from every one I put here speaks for me.
And its local.
Well still stunned that the symptoms of over population seem hidden from some.
And they include poverty death for want of food and clean water.
in my view.
I find it hard not to fear end results.
My seemingly scatter brain concerns at dictatorship are to me realistic.
Wars have been fought over far less.

The Chinese famine 1958-1962 was the result of Mao's Great Sparrow Campaign. Google this as many sources come online. Tinkering with ecological balance is always disastrous.

“ The masses of China were mobilized to eradicate the birds, and citizens took to banging pots and pans or beating drums to scare the birds from landing, forcing them to fly until they fell from the sky in exhaustion. Sparrow nests were torn down, eggs were broken, and nestlings were killed. Sparrows and other birds were shot down from the sky, resulting in the near-extinction of the birds in China.Non-material rewards and recognition were offered to schools, work units and government agencies in accordance with the volume of pests they had killed.

By April 1960, Chinese leaders realized that sparrows ate a large amount of insects, as well as grains. Rather than being increased, rice yields after the campaign were substantially decreased. Mao ordered the end of the campaign against sparrows ... .
By this time, however, it was too late. With no sparrows to eat them, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country and compounding the ecological problems already caused by the Great Leap Forward, including widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides. Ecological imbalance is credited with exacerbating the Great Chinese Famine in which upwards of 30 million people died of starvation. “

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign

As a general rule, famine brings with it lowered birth-rates. During the war when food was very scarce, women ceased ovulating. Only when adequate nourishment became the norm, did ovulation resume with these women.

That link the csteel gave to TED video led me to a website;
gapminder.com. There is a free graphical display program and many
xcel files of various world statistics.
The xcel files display OK in Open Office.calc.
There is Linux as well as Apple and Windows graph program
gapminder desktop that you can load into your m/c.

The spreadsheets may solve a lot of arguments on here.

Sorry it is gapminder.org

Yes Danielle, the first thing we need is to be saved FROM great leaders. They kill millions.

Then we need to be saved from "activists scientists", who's advice to great leaders cause the killing of millions.

Yes we should stop the population growth, particularly in Oz, but not because the population can't be fed, but because we can see societal break down as over crowding grows.

Food is no problem. In my shire, we produce about a quarter of what we did 80 years ago. The effort required in high productive farming is high, & the rewards very small. No one does it around here any more, it's just not fun. However with todays technology we could easily quadruple our output, if someone was to make it worth while.

The same is true of much of Oz. International competition, with cheap freight, & the growth of the ruthless big two in food retailing has reduced the return per unit of labor to below viability.

So it is not the world that's over populated, just some bits of it. Our large cities are all ready there. It is time for us to stop. It is up to others to suit themselves, provided they don't want to call help when they stuff up.

Dear Bazz,

It is a great site isn't it and Hans is a very inspiring fellow. He has ladled quite a few dollops of optimism for the future of the globe on to my plate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8gHT3Xgz9A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Here is a man who has an extraordinary grasp on world statistics and trends, yet he is very positive about what we have achieved so far and for what our future could be if we worked at it.

If one has a choice between doomsayers and Hans I think he wins hands down.

Dear landrights4all,

Not a member of the twitteratte I'm afraid.

Belly,
What I would like to know is how csteele, Danelle and landright4all propose that ever increasing populations in third world countries are to be fed.

Practical people are aware that sea food harvests are dimishing and more and more productive farmland is being covered up with bitumen and houses. Therefore our capacity to produce food is constantly being reduced.

Estimates already put this years production to be short 6.5 million tons of corn and 500,000 tons short of wheat. So who is going to go hungry. 6 million kids died from lack of food last year and 92.5 million people were undernourished.

It must be good to simply ignore these facts and say not to worry we can feed everyone.

We have not even factored in Bazz's fuel rising costs and availability at this point.

I can see plenty of hard winters ahead for millions of people outside the western world.

Can these 'deniers' show us how to feed the growing population?

Banjo,

I agree that third world countries are overpopulated. I really don't know how this can be addressed.

Banjo yes agree, sadly it is not a consideration for the dreamers.
In my last link, possibly the best I posted it is the time taken to fill the last half of the glass.
The accelerating nature of the growth, that brings my concerns.
I too could post link after link of the great steps in increasing food production from avoiding past predicted famine to future ones avoided.
How do we sideline Southern Africa's recent history?
What do we do about starvation on the sub continent?
How will the current northern hemispheres drought affect the world?
At what point will food prices be too high for the true poor to buy?
As we know food grains are being used as fuel right now.
We have a problem, saying we can fix it but ignoring a truth, no one wants to, is folly.
Can some who say we have no problem tell me what in their opinion, the total population can get to before we need to worry?

If we reach the position of overpopulation and famine, possibly a Malthusian adjustment will kick in.

The weak and vulnerable will die, female fertility will cease until sufficient nutrition/food becomes regularly available.

Certainly populations will plummet to sustainable numbers, which could well be quite small ...

Hi Banjo - FEED THE POOR?

We are so soaked from our childhood onwards in our “power” & “competiton” ways of thinking that we can hardly even imagine any alternative. We assume that the educated, those in the know, those in power (leaders, soldiers & political movements) are the answer – or that we ourselves might set an example if only there were enough of us willing to be martyres to the cause – but what an unattractive life martyres illustrate.

We all but ignore “the poor”, except perhaps to hope they will rise up & “take power” in this world of our limited perspective. (More competitive thinking)

Actually, I reckon the poor are the only ones who might show us how to advance along a new path, because the path along which we the rich have trod is simply unattainable for them (and unsustainable for us).

So do we just sit & wait for them to show us the way? Of course not – we have erected structural barriers that prevent them from advancing along any path which is not ours & these barriers must be opened up with our help. Meanwhile we owe them a substantial increase in aid to tide them through!

In Australia for example, the Centrelink Activity Test needs a simple change which could serve us all better & empower the unemployed. see http://on.fb.me/Azrz9F
This would empower change in the options social housing tenants can follow see http://bit.ly/fAWRjc

Demonstrating a more sustainable ATTRACTIVE way forward could take the fear out of the changes we need to make.

How would this feed the poor? Land security (which the poor don't have) is the foundation for food & shelter - what is needed is land security and the opportunity to tread their own path, free of the burden of the mortgage which would force them down the unsustainable path we are on (specialisation, industrialisation).

No, the world isn't overpopulated - but the poor ARE forced into unviable land in countries that follow our land ownership model and offer no alternative. The option is something we COULD demonstrate.

Ah, the still small voice of sanity and reason. Thank you, Danielle.

>>I agree that third world countries are overpopulated. I really don't know how this can be addressed.<<

And...

>>If we reach the position of overpopulation and famine, possibly... the weak and vulnerable will die, female fertility will cease until sufficient nutrition/food becomes regularly available.<<

The earth's population of humans reacts to precisely the same set of variables as that of the animal kingdom. Including, of course, the impact of predators, both within and outside the tribe. Any supposedly intellectually-founded attempts to influence this, such as a one-child policy, or massive food-aid programmes, result only in the creation of their own imbalances, and ultimately fail in their basic purpose.

Another way of looking at the question would be to ask whether there are too many sparrows, or mosquitoes, or locusts, or Tasmanian tigers in the world. And be prepared to justify your answer in logical terms.

The world population is still increasing, but from that gapmind.org
site it appears that the number of babies per woman is falling and
wealth is increasing. So in the next generation we may see a flatlining
of the population curve.
That being so will not solve the problem as energy, which is also
flatlining will start decreasing from about now to the next five years.

As far as an optimistic future is concerned why don't you look at the
Transition Towns movement ? Google it !
They have the right idea. They believe that we can adapt and avoid
any major disaster and live quite happy useful lives on less energy
without having to go back to the 16th century.
They accept that everything will become local including electricity
generation, food production, furniture manufacture etc etc.

It does not have to be a total disaster (unless you work in aviation)
on the way down the Hubbard curve.

Thank you Pericles.

landrights4all,

I imagine that you are aware of Landshare
http://www.landshareaustralia.com.au

I do not know how well this would work in third world countries ... there are a number of variables which would need to be addressed, not the least social hierarchies.

Bazz,

The idea that councils provide solar power has a great deal of merit.

I live in a rural fringe area. Once dense with trees, the area is becoming denuded a people cut these down in order that the sun has clear access to reach their solar panels.

The poor will lead? in say Bangladesh, land rights for all?
Are you pulling our leg?
It is the act of sex that produces Children, and often linked to no birth control, in fact a need for children to help feed the parents.
We if we wish can look for other reasons for hunger, starvation, mass deaths, blame it on drought and any thing.
But is that too not a symptom of to many humans on to little land?
If we are not over populated when will we be,10 Billion? 100 Billion?
I know, I truly do, my thought that we, one day, maybe controlled by a Dictatorship, possibly China?, is seen as silly.
But here, in one thread, the true nature of us, humanity can be seen, we can not even agree if we have a problem!
And one proposes the victims fix it if we do!

Dear Pericles,

I am afraid my friend that sort of thinking is like Belly's collection of quotes linked to in one of his recent posts, filled mainly with those from the dead. It is old and hardly relevant given what has been achieved in the last 50 years.

For the most part we are not dumb animals but thinking human beings who have developed and used chemical and societal means of controlling our population forestalling most of the doomsday predictions from the past.

While famine brings lower birth rates poverty does the opposite and therein lies the answer. The more countries are lifted from poverty, the higher the child survival rate and therefore the impetuous to have greater family size is dramatically diminished.

The incredible achievements of the great majority of the world's countries who have managed to raise their populations from poverty and thus have seen plummeting birth rates per woman should be viewed with wonder and hope.

World population is expected to peak at 10 billion then trend downwards which will bring its own sets of challenges for economies fixated with growth. Of course there is the immediate challenge of feeding that 10 billion but also of continuing to drag countries out of poverty, Afghanistan and the Congo being two prime candidates. We should be capable of that as a species especially if we can provide the resources and coordinated efforts that are required which is why it is often disheartening to here cries of protest about our aid budget or our commitment to the UN.

We have already reached our peak of 2 billion children on the planet and this will not change by 2100, it is managing the inevitable population peak at 10 billion that will occupy us from here.
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/religions-and-babies/

At least Bazz has taken the time to digest the message delivered by Mr Rosling. Tell me why he has it wrong and I will listen but please don't ignore him.

Dear Belly,

You should watch the above video too if you are able. It may well calm some of your fears.

Dear Belly,

You have sneered “The poor will lead? in say Bangladesh, land rights for all? Are you pulling our leg?”

Lets have a look at the facts shall we.

In just 30 years Bangladesh has dropped its infant mortality rate per 1000 births from 138 to less than 50.

As a result it has taken its fertility rate during that period from almost 7 children per couple to 2.4.

Its annual population growth for 2007-8 was 1.4% compared to a country like Syria which was 3.5%.

It is one of the most amazing turnarounds of any nation on the planet.

Can they do more with the help of wealthy countries like ourselves, of course, unless they try selling jute to Cuba.

Why not find it in your heart to give credit where it is due?

*The more countries are lifted from poverty, the higher the child survival rate and therefore the impetuous to have greater family size is dramatically diminished.*

Csteele, whatever makes you think that women want to have all these
children? 45 million of them would not be having abortions, if they did. Melinda Gates finally twigged on all this, when she went out into the third world and talked to third world women. They made it clear to her that they wanted a choice, which hundreds of millions of them are simply too poor to afford. Google the latest UN Convention in London on this, of earlier in July.

So finally more money is being made available to more hundreds of millions of women to give them a choice, something that we have denied many of them.

Its exactly how Melinda Gates eventually twigged. She realised that she had the choice to have 3 children, unlike many third world women who are simply too poor to afford contraception.

Of course the world is overpopulated. The only way we can keep increasing the human population, is to keep wiping out other species habitats in the process. More and more humans, stuff the other species. Hardly sustainable

http://www.economist.com/node/21558564

There ya go. Even the Economist agrees that giving women a choice about family planning is a good thing. The religious right spent years under Bush, trying to put a spanner in the works on this one.
Thankfully the Catholic lobby has some opponents out there.

csteele,
The drop in birthrates in Bangladesh was the result of government sponsored and financed family planning. It is to do with education in family planning. A signioficant drop, but is still way above the replacement level of 2.3 India, Pakistan, Phillipines and Manamar are well above replacement level also.

Some Asian countries such as, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore and Indonesia are below replacement levels.

It will take 20-30 years for the drop in birthrate to show up in population trends.

Again I post this link below which shows the economic benefits of government sponsored family planning.

From recollection many African countries are in the 5-6 range of babies per woman.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/9489/family-planning-in-thailand-ph

Dear Yabby,

Point taken, and of course the word was impetus rather than impetuous though either could fit in a fashion.

Yet as Hans' animation shows the remarkable figures in Bangladesh were achieved without a dramatic jump in wealth, the kind that would give women access to all the choices afforded women in the US.

Other measures have been undertaken that have had sizeable impacts. One of them was to raise the minimum legal age of marriage to 18 for women and 21 for men. These laws have been backed up with strong penalties with two years imprisonment the ultimate sanction. Prior to this the UN estimated that half the women aged between 15 and 19 had been married.

So while the donations and aid from western individuals and governments are of course part of the mix we really need to acknowledge that these countries recognise the issue and are prepared to act on it. They are not the kind of backward, unthinking, and uncaring societies that some would have us believe.

Many nations around the world are having real successes managing populations so much so that rather than the exponential growth touted by some here the projections have numbers peaking then dropping.

As to the world being over populated I certainly think parts of it are and as a result there is quite significant impacts on species and the environment. For instance over 60% of Bangladesh's energy comes from fuel woods much of it taken from the foothill around mountains which is also vital habitat for species. Assistance to move away from this reliance would have and enormous benefit.

I keep coming back to Japan but if a country with its population density, food production and manufacturing can retain over 60% forest coverage then it should we be saying they are overpopulated?

We have the tools to dramatically lessen the impact the human species has on our planet even at the 10 billion mark. This should be our focus now as that figure is inevitable but not unmanageable.

Dear Yabby,

It wasn't only Bush my friend.

In 1996, the Howard (Liberal/National Coalition) government, desperate for the support of Harradine in the Senate, made amendments to Australia's foreign aid guidelines demanded by Harradine. The AusAID family planning guidelines forbade any organisation that accepts Australian aid dollars from providing, recommending or even supplying information on abortion - even when to do so may save the woman's life.
Wikipedia

From memory this ban is still in place.

Dear Banjo,

I agree family planning gets a lot of credit. What I am reacting to is some of the sentiments posted here such as;

“The only remedies that are known to work are the old standards of War, Pestilence and Famine.”

“However, birth control is unlikely to act quick enough to avoid a very high level of starvation.”

“No aid or loans of any nature or help for ANY country not signing up for two child policy in third world and ANY country.
Without effort and results , laugh if you wish, we will one day have a world dictatorship and see our freedoms die.
Current view growth is good is foolish and clearly untrue a day just has to come that ends population growth, be it war famine or disease.”

“There will come a time when limits by law will have to be placed on births.”

“I believe such death rates will be frequent occurances in some countries.”

“Is dictatorship ahead or mass deaths world wide.”

The facts don't support them.

And you may well claim India's fertility rate at 2.4 births per woman is still above replacement of 2.1 but to say it is 'well above' is just plain wrong, particularly in light of where they were 30 years ago. In fact nearly a third of the Indian states have fertility rates equal or below Australia's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertility_rate

I'm only trying to bring some balance to the debate by highlighting the actual statistics. I'm not advocating any slacking of the effort to bring nations out of poverty but much of the negativity posted here is unwarranted.

csteele I do, truly, find it strange you continue to question my heart yet oppose the view we are over populated.
I am warm and happy with the thought the true left is sinking, forever.
Pointless to continue to send endless aid, if it does not include birth control.
Every human on the face of this planet has opinions and every right to them.
But not one of them is always right.
I stand firmly, concerned at a blindness, I THINK I see in you, an inability I think YOU HAVE, to see any cultural wrong, in ONE belief, including haveing far too many children.
What other reason can you have for claiming we need not be concerned

csteele,

Just as an aside to the main argument here, any "dramatic jump in wealth" in the third world is usually accompanied by a degree of westernisation. India is a case in point, with a massive migration from the land to the cities, introduced monoculture farming making it harder for families to eke out out a living by subsistence farming employing a diversity of crops.

Here's the upshot, in that "Western" diseases become an additional plague to the population.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-23/obesity-produces-diabetic-epidemic-in-india/4148616

csteele,
Figures I have read show India to be well above replacement level as a whole. However belly is right, we need to put family planning high on the list with aid western countries give to developing countries, especially with those that are most susseptable to famine.

A lot of Asian countries are heading in the right direction but African countries are over populated. The Asian experience is that given the education and the means, women will not have so many kids and families will be much better off.

Dannelle made the point earlier that females stop ovulating when food is scarce, so each time we hand out extra food it means they begin ovulating again and so produce more mouths to feed. Of course we cannot stand aside and let people die but we need to concentrate more on prevention by providing the means of contraception.

Unfortunately I see that it will be too late for many and there is every likelyhood that mass deaths will occur before some populations drop. Will keep an eye on the present drought in the North and see what happens. It looks like Canada is only partially affected at present. This means that grain may be available to Africa this year and Aus is looking good for a good harvest as well.

*It wasn't only Bush my friend.*

I agree with you on that one, Csteele. I mentioned Bush, as his signficicance was mentioned in the Economist article. But you are correct, the tentacles of the Vatican, stretch all the way into our own Govts, right here.

Nobody shouts more about this on OLO than I do and Harradine was a classic example of how the church can wield its power, under our very noses. Right now we have another example in WA. A brand new hosptial being built in WA by taxpayers and the Catholics will be the operators. Bad luck to you, if you want the snip or your tubes tied.
One doctor was actually kicked out from one of their hospitals, after
performing such a procedure.

At least we Australians can go elsewhere, unlike poor people in other parts of the world like the Philippines, where they have litle choice but to keep popping out babies. Parts of Africa are much the same.

Independents can wield far too much power in politics ...

There is something very wrong with this picture.

I fail to see how we can avoid some truths about third world country's.
India, on its way to being a giant economy still has its poor living in the gutters.
Yes America can be charged with that too.
But corruption sees very little getting to those in need , even the aid we send.
Lets look at the food aid concerts, been a few mass death droughts now, and we send food.
Only to see it stolen or profit made from it, and the birth rate replaces those who died,fast.
Look at Somalia, would they have more with half the numbers of people?
I strongly think those Dennie the problem add to it.
And that one day we will see much less freedom as measures to control a great deal we choose not to are enforced, maybe not all bad.

I will be surprised if there is sudden change in birthrates.
As I see it, it requires two things to happen.
The child death rate has to fall and at the same time an old age
pension has to be introduced.
Together they can look after people in their old age.

As far as the pension is concerned, I doubt if the countries where it
is needed most will ever be able to finance it.
We are now in a new financial regime permanently, even if governments
have not yet woken up to the new normal.

Bazz in your thoughts I can see why my bad dream, dictatorship is a possibility.
We seem unable to fix starvation mass deaths from illness, refugees world wide.
We live our western lives not even caring about a million some place, dieing of those unnecessary things every year.
Even the thought we are over populated gets rebuffed!
Yet a farmer, not the Pitt Street variety, knows if he over stocks a paddock, and leaves it that way, the stock, all of them, will die.
A clay paddock sparsely grassed can not carry what a river flat can.
The link you and I spoke of showed after a 50 year recession, birth rate falling, we would still produce .48 percent more each year than we lost.

Probably not related to the thread but maybe to OLO.
I am just a little concerned at our growing harshness toward each other, mine too.
We are forming fences around one another, me too, that still does not make it right.
Graham is light on the steering wheel, we seem to like it that way,but we do tend to needlessly insult one another.
Nothing new there.
I think it has always been so.
This thread, and others, skids to a stop mid debate, as it nears 100 posts.
And blind Frederick observing from a galloping horse could see we are not posting in each others threads, those of us most usually in verbal conflict.
OPINION, just what do we do about that word?
My most recent conflict came after what I saw as unfounded and unwarranted insults, from a badly informed poster.
But do we have the right to think differently?
If we all, me too, start our own fence building what is the out come for OLO?
I think a quick look at other forums,see how bad some are may re introduce some mutual respect here.
And that every one of us should consider this, how can they be sure only they are ever right.
The world is over populated and if we do not except we are not perfect maybe OLO will suffer at our hands.

Dear Banjo,

You wrote;

“However belly is right, we need to put family planning high on the list with aid western countries give to developing countries, especially with those that are most susceptible to famine.”

“A lot of Asian countries are heading in the right direction but African countries are over populated. The Asian experience is that given the education and the means, women will not have so many kids and families will be much better off.”

Leaving aside the obscene notion of some that a country such as Australia with its “One for dad, one for mum and one for the country” plus generous baby bonuses should be demanding that its overseas aid to countries like Bangladesh should be provisional on the recipient mandating a strict two child policy, completely of course ignoring the fact that the Bangladeshi fertility rate is now below ours, you must realise that addressing the 'education and means' will in turn facilitate the adoption of family planning initiatives.

Often our perception of over population is determined by a country's susceptibility to famine yet it is hardly the best measure since famine to a great degree is predicated on a particular country's ability to buy grain on the world market. Who would argue that Singapore with its density is over populated? Both India and China export large quantities of grain and one if not both have the monetary means to now weather poor crop yields.

Some African countries do not have that luxury. Food is moved around the world all the time. If it goes to a country that is wealthy and pays for it we tend not to question its population levels, on the other hand if a country is forced to accept the food as aid we get very prescriptive from our comfortable tables.

Helping raise countries on to more secure economic footing is vital but we should never be talked into being stingy with food aid while they take that journey.

*but we should never be talked into being stingy with food aid while they take that journey.*

Well I'm not so sure about that one Csteele. I remember watching
a documentary some time ago, where a bloke in Central Africa, who
had 2 wives and around 14 or 15 kids between them, was complaining about not receiving enough food aid.

Now like most people, I did not have 2 wives and a tribe of kids,
as I could never have afforded to feed them. Are you suggesting
that no matter how many kids that people pop out, you will feed them
all? I think you are trying to go against the very laws of nature here, which come down to parents providing for their offspring.

Personally, I'd rather send my aid money to help women who want a choice about how many kids they pop out, but simply don't have the
means to make that choice.

Given that we spend 4 billion a year on foreign aid, there is no good reason that we cannot spend a fixed share of that, like at least 10%,
for women to have real choices about how many kids that they produce.
Tens of millions would not be getting the knitting needles out, if all these kids were wanted. Fact is that if people have sex without contraception, more hungry mouths will appear.Let the Vatican with
all its billions tucked away, feed the little darlings.

Yabby if I had to go in to the trenches it would be with you and Banjo.
Some clear and honest thinking is called for here.
IF the views of csteele held sway, I would demand we stop ALL AID.
But I understand they do not.
My thoughts clearly stated up the thread, are it will take international laws.
One rule for all, to cut population growth.
IF we do not do it on a voluntary basis some one will ENFORCE IT ON US.
My first thoughts repeated here are tax those who have more kids than allowed in any country.
No food aid no SS nothing for such family.
No trade with country's that do not agree.
Birth control free in poor country's.
west to fund job creation in country's that lower population growth.
China has done it.
csteels charge that Costello's words are Australian policy are shallow.

Dear Belly,

Lol.

I'm just imagining a conversation in your trench.

'Hey lads, no sharing rations with that 'mick' over there, he comes from a family of ten and his missus has already popped out 4 of her own. When the blighter gets really hungry hand him a bayonet and tell him he gets a feed when he comes back with a squeaky voice!'

I'm happy in my trench thanks.

*I'm happy in my trench thanks.*

That's fine Csteele. We'll just get all the girls pregnant, you
can feed all their children. That's a fair deal :)

Sadly the Africans have worked softies like you out, long ago.
I once followed a net debate between and Eritrean and an Ethiopian.
The Eritrean correctly pointed out that the Ethiopians knew very well
that they only had to dangle a starving baby or two before the Western TV cameras and hey presto, over the horzion came the boatloads of Western food! Far easier than growing the stuff and for sale at most markets in Africa.

csteele,

As ever ...

Why not ask the women in these countries if they want constant pregnancies ... Alternatively,look at their experiences.

Years ago I supported a program to teach women in Africa how to grow subsistence food. At points it was successful, but failed at others and certainly not because of lack of will by these women.

Look at maternal mortality rates in these countries.

Of course, you have heard of maternal fistulas.

The Fistula Foundation
http://www.fistulafoundation.org/

“Obstetric fistula is the most devastating and serious of all childbirth injuries. It happens because most mothers in poor countries give birth without any medical help. So many are young girls. Complications from pregnancy and childbirth are among the leading causes of death and disability for women of reproductive age in these places ...

Her baby is unlikely to survive. If she survives, a woman with fistula is likely to be rejected by her husband because of her inability to bear more children and her foul smell. She will be shunned by her community and forced to live an isolated existence. These women suffer profound psychological trauma resulting from their utter loss of status and dignity, in addition to suffering constantly from their physical internal injury ...

Right now, hundreds of thousands of women are suffering from this heartbreaking, treatable childbirth injury because they are too poor to afford surgery that costs about $450.

This number keeps growing bigger. Each year approximately 100,000 women develop this childbirth injury — or 273 each day. The international capacity to treat fistula patients has been estimated at 6,500 a year — or 18 patients each day. Surgeons would describe this as an enormous backlog of untreated patients. There is clearly an overwhelming need for treating far more women."

In addition, these women are desperate about their children's future.

We all know that food sent to these places frequently does not reach the people for whom it is intended due to corruption at higher levels.

cont ...

The best future is for these women to have access to free contraception and reproductive education.

Instead of pontificating "on their behalf," let them decide.

Let them have the means to make decisions for themselves. Give them this dignity and right.

csteele,

I suggest you read the entire article for yourself ...

http://www.fistulafoundation.org/whatisfistula/

csteele loven it!
Dad had 16 kids with mum,8 lived to grow up.
Think he had that number out of wed lock, I inherited his grin!
Best chance the worlds poor have is to keep the nutty left and bleeding hearts under lock and key.
Let the rational get it done.
I would have thought, based on your history you would be in the trench opposite mine.

Dear Belly,

You wrote;

"I would have thought, based on your history you would be in the trench opposite mine."

You are probably right. Me and my mob are pretty easily recognized, just look for the slouch hats, where do I look for your lot? Oh there you are, looking remarkably resplendent in your coal scuttle helmets. ;)

Low? yes but it is the best you can do!
My family has its dead in France and others here bought home.
In debate the need to change the subject points to an admission of defeat.

Dear Belly,

Hell's Bells mate you are one thin skinned so and so.

Some of my family had their heads removed by Samurai sword on some island beach and their bodies fed to the sharks. But so what? Why go there?

I have attempted to lighten things up a little in that time honored fashion of the Australian male by taking the piss. You shot one back which was all to the good, then got your knickers in a knot when I lobbed it back into your court.

Jeez on some of the sites I work on you wouldn't last two minutes.

Couldn't you have just said something like; "let me know when you want your helmet back oh and by the way the picture of your girlfriend you left inside tells me she had better leave off the sauerkraut or possibly the clover".

For the record while I probably can find my way around the Internet to support my positions with a little more skill it doesn't count for much in the grand scheme of things and I don't think I'm any better than you.

But you should lighten up a little or you will end up being that touchy loner at the end of the bar moping into his beer.

csteele do not be too sure.I have far more Friends than enemy's and most on any site I worked on.
our post seem a little more constructed than mine, I understand why some thought you to be a woman.
We clash, and will continue to, your total support for people of the middle east,and the Muslim faith, remember that woman who lied to try to get a cop?
The grubby thugs out side that court in support?
Do you remember your blind and total support for her?
I will not back down to you.
I think humanity must consider birth control as a start, in stopping starvation.
I see, you may if you wish say I am wrong, More than one religion is too controlling in the matter of birth control.
And in fact sponsor deaths by starvation in defense of myths.
Equality will not be handed to third world country's without effort.
That effort must be a willingness to join every country in controlling population.
As the thread has become us slandering each other I leave it to you.
But support my views every one of them.

Dear Belly,

From memory our exchange way back then was more about my defence of the judge in the case from your slanders, but memory and prejudices tend to play tricks on us all.

But hell isn't it time you let it go? This constant rehashing is childish, boring to other readers, and must be taxing to you especially.

As to me being a woman you were the first to label me as such and others followed your cue. Given your often misogynistic comments on OLO I assumed you attempted it as an insult and my non-reaction confused you. As I in no way take being referred to as a woman derogatory I have never felt the need to clarify my sex to you as it would have been playing to the notion it was a slight which it most definitely isn't.

Dear Danielle,

Thank you for the link. I have heard the incredible Australian woman Dr Catherine Hamlin interviewed several times on Radio National and I thought your link was to her organisation. However the only reference was;

"The Fistula Foundation was founded as American Friends Foundation for Childbirth Injuries in 2000 by Richard Haas and his daughter Shaleece. The Haases visited the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital and were moved by the oasis of healing created by Dr. Catherine Hamlin and her late husband, Dr. Reginald Hamlin."

Dr Hamlin's tireless work should make every Australian proud and is marvellous to see her efforts inspiring others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Hamlin

Yet fistula is surely about the access to and provision of decent medical care through childbirth rather than a population question per say. Less babies would reduce any woman's chances of fistula but to say “The best future is for these women to have access to free contraception and reproductive education” is exactly the type of pontification and proscription you are accusing me of.

If we are not prepared to assist in raising them from want through providing more stable food resources, education and medical care then why shouldn't concentrating purely on supplying birth control as the panacea be regarded as self serving.

Dear Steele,

Women must have choice. They should decide the number of children they have and the spacing between them. It is insensitive to say to them just keep on having children and we will feed them. It is much, much more than this.

Having children for a woman is an enormous event in every area of her life. These women frequently see others dying in childbirth or experiencing horrific injuries. Can you imagine how impotent, and often frightened, they feel if they do no have choice.

When they have children, the protective and natural instinct is to ensure these children survive and have a future ... a future not dependent upon hand-outs from charity.

Have you no concept of the stress and fear women endure if they have to worry not only about the present circumstances of their children, but the their future as well; and if they themselves will become incapacitated or worse through childbirth.

Do you fear that if they do have choice, they are not going to have so many children. Why is this so wrong?

Some women may keep on having children, others may not. Surely it is for them to have the means to make such a decision, and their right .. not for some stranger in another country to make it for them.

Yes, I am indeed familiar with the wonderful organization you mention.

Yes, Steele,

I agree that wealthy countries should step up to the plate regarding putting education, medical and self-sufficiency programs in place. Women having 'choice' is right up there with this.

I can't understand your apparent (is it real) inability to recognise that women should have choice - to adopt, or not to adopt, contraceptive methods.

You write of 'self-serving' as if these women are going to be forced to take contraception ... Or do you think proponents of 'choice' actually mean putting contraception in their drinking water.

Dear Danielle,

You wrote;

"You write of 'self-serving' as if these women are going to be forced to take contraception ... Or do you think proponents of 'choice' actually mean putting contraception in their drinking water."

Not at all, my objections center around those who would have birth control as the only thing on our assistance table, or would only supply other resources with proscriptions of mandated two child families or burdensome tax regimes on what they deem as larger families.

I think choices for women don't just come from drugs or procedures that interfere with the fertility process but rather freedoms gained through education, opportunity, more equitable access to resources, and social equality.

To be concentrating only on the former which seems to be the demand of a number of the posters here is by any measure self serving.

I think it demeans us if we do not have the capacity to look holistically at where we can assist those who have been less fortuitous in their birthplace than ourselves.

I feel the fence we think we have between us may well be illusionary.

*but rather freedoms gained through education, opportunity, more equitable access to resources, and social equality.*

Err Csteele, you clearly miss the point. Whilst women have 8-10 children dangling from their aprons, they really don't have time or resources to do anything else. The very point of contraception is to give them time and resources to think about those other options.

Its quite simple. Give women the choice. Not their Govts, not the
religious leaders, not their husbands or fathers. Let women decide.

At the moment they are simply broodmares for males like yourself who
clearly don't see the importance of giving them that option. Kind of
sad really.

Steele,

"... proscriptions of mandated two child families or burdensome tax regimes on what they deem as larger families."

This was never suggested. Self determination was.

"I think choices for women don't just come from drugs or procedures that interfere with the fertility process ..."

Is this the objection? One based on health concerns? This doesn't really hold up now considering the research; and births too many, too close together are risky. First births and multi-para carry the most risk.

"... but rather freedoms gained through education, opportunity, more equitable access to resources, and social equality."

Well some of our schoolgirl mothers rather put this to the lie. It doesn't automatically follow.

I believe young women, both here and in third world countries, should have reproductive education and have access to contraceptive methods, whatever their social situation. If we wait until those you mention are implemented satisfactorily in third world countries, it could be a long time. Contraception can help women immediately. At the very least they have some control over their lives ... and those of their children.

Steele,

I will draw on personal experience. Many years ago I lived in Malaysia - there were hospitals and schools, ample facilities, and food.

I knew a married couple who had over six children. With the wife's final pregnancy her husband observed that he couldn't understand why Allah was 'blessing' him with so many children. On finding out that she was to have twins, she 'foresaw' that she would die;the husband extremely distressed, accepted this. Dying in childbirth, the doctor who attended her said that there was no medical reason that she should have.

Both she and her husband had no idea of reproduction. If they had known how to control their fertility, and had the means, this tragic situation would never have happened.

I witnessed this lack of knowledge of reproduction frequently. Certainly, if contraception had been available, women would have adopted it.

Dear Danielle,

You wrote;

Quote

Steele

"... proscriptions of mandated two child families or burdensome tax regimes on what they deem as larger families."

This was never suggested. Self determination was.

End quote

You are wrong because this is exactly what had been suggested. From the OP.

“No aid or loans of any nature or help for ANY country not signing up for two child policy in third world and ANY country."

"My first thoughts repeated here are tax those who have more kids than allowed in any country.
No food aid no SS nothing for such family.
No trade with country's that do not agree."

Look here are the facts, the third world has achieved so much in so little time in the area of maternal and infant mortality that is one of the great wonders of our age. 

For instance India in the ten years to 2009 managed to drop its Maternal Mortality Ratio by 35%, drop its Infant Mortality rate by 30% and drop its Child under 5 mortality rate by a whopping 50%.

This should be celebrated and supported rather than have threats about aid restrictions waved at them.

With only a few exceptions results like these are being achieved throughout developing nations and the third world.

It is miraculous and deserving of our applause. It is just so mean-spirited to be thinking about our aid budgets only in terms of where they might be directed to address what we perceive as threats to our country.

Thank God for Aussies like Catherine Hamlin. 

csteele your taunt brings me back.
I challenge the honesty of your memory's of our clashing back then.
Too your right to speak for others about me.
I remind you of your reporting relationship to some, who we clash about.
I seemingly unlike your self, often re visit past thread to match what is being said in current like ones.
I also note you add value to your own thoughts but give none to others.
On posting my thoughts unless I change them, and I do, I see no reason to forget them.
csteele as not PC as it ,may be to say it,I find it unlikely we will agree on much ever.
*Tell me what you really think not what you think I want to hear*
Those words opened every construction union meeting I ever held.
And point to this truth, words are nothing if you do not believe what you are saying.

op? well I actually said and meant those words.
I still think to lower birth rates for say nine tenths of the world, but not for the other tenth is unfair.
How do we address that? well mostly we do not.
Why give aid, any aid including trade, to that country who will not help them selves?
Read my in put to a thread I started, yes needs sanding down smoothing out, bit rough, some times harsh.
Then read csteels input, see the difference? we have no problem! no need for action! just let this invisible nonexistent nature take its course.
STARVATION.

Belly,

I am sure that if contraception and reproductive education was introduced to third world countries, especially in rural areas TODAY - instead of waiting for some 'infrastructure,' the reproduction rates would immediately stable themselves, then drop. Why should women have to wait.

Also, I wonder if in third world countries, how well statistics are obtained, especially in the rural areas.

Steele,

"Thank God for Aussies like Catherine Hamlin."

I second your comment.

However, it is a tragedy that people like Catherine Hamlin are so desperately needed ... and for so very many women.

Dear Belly,

Nah mate, I've had a look and seems my memory is pretty spot on. You wanted to string the poor judge up and I was defending him.

Dear Danielle,

Who on earth has said birth control and reproductive education had to wait for infrastructure before being rolled out?

I do note the actions of the woman we have both applauded was completely in keeping with my message here. She got cracking and with her husband trained gynecologists and set up her own fistula hospital. Thank god she didn't take the view to just throw birth control and reproductive education at the problem.

Under Belly's regime any potential Australian government support for her hospital would not have been forthcoming unless the Ethiopian government fulfilled his strict guidelines.

The good doctor's example should inspire and inform our own actions as aid givers. Makes me proud to be an Australian.

Steele,

"Thank god she didn't take the view to just throw birth control and reproductive education at the problem."

You're being facetious.

I am surprised at the number of comments that want Government enforced control of birth and introduce chemical genocide of peoples rights. That has been tried before, by drowning, slaughter, and chemical impotence.

*and introduce chemical genocide of peoples rights.*

Er hang on Josephus, that is give people a choice, as distinct
from denying them a choice, as per Vatican control. Crossing
your legs for Jesus, has been a dismal failure as a form of
birth control.

The problem with the Catholic Church is not that they forbid the use of contraception to their laity. This is their right as a religion to impose guidelines for the faithful. It is also the right of Catholics to adhere to these guidelines according to their conscience. No fair minded person would question this.

The problem with the Catholic Church is that they impose these strictures on those not of its faith.

Dear Danielle,

Being facetious?

Only if you were my dear, if you weren't then neither was I.

Daniele I too want EVERY WOMAN to have the right to say how her body is used.
Every single one of them to be given birth control free if needed.
But let us look, while some good out comes are there in sight for all to see why the continued growth.
I think Catholics are against birth control to grow Church membership.
I think they are not the only belief system, and supporters of such who think that way.
I have seen as many failures from the UN as successes, Rwanda massacre and the Balkans for a start.
I see some country's, far too many, calling NGO, charity groups FOREIGN AGENTS
So a UN empowered to act, in any country all country's, with one rule, may be the best answer.
Be aware csteele twists the truth, in that thread I wanted the woman imprisoned and the judge sacked, csteele supported extremist Muslim actions including thug like behavior out side the court aimed at intimidation.

Josephus,

"... introduce chemical genocide of peoples rights."

Could you please explain what you mean by this?

Belly,

Unfortunately, among the most influential members of the UN are those whose populations are the least educated in the world; and they certainly aren't interested in women's rights ... indeed, not even general human rights.

I'm sure that you are correct about the suspicion of NGOs and charitable groups. Another problem is that many NGO bodies suffer from "localitis" - perhaps understandably so. They bow their head to whatever are the relevant governments' politics and viewpoints in order to function at some level

Danielle all too true.
But unacceptable, the hardest step in any journey is the first.
People power can change anything.
I believe starvation and third world poverty, Man made Global warming, pollution of the seas and air, are by products, symptoms, of over population.
I too think while we can fight over the man made part of Global warming, it is hard to push a view, that without change we are not over populated.
Yet without a change, a considered world wide change we already are and it will get much worse.

In saying "I believe starvation and third world poverty, Man made Global warming, pollution of the seas and air, are by products, symptoms, of over population." why do you assume the problem is numbers (specifically in the poor third world) rather than that the way some (being the industrialised nations which comprise just 1/5th of the population of the globe) are greedily over consuming?

I believe that reducing our greed would allow the poor to have more of what they need for survival, and that if they had that security they would be far less reliant on having big families. The evidence is that in countries where people have security, people are having family sizes that barely replace themselves.

I think blaming the poor for the problems we are clearly responsible for is just a tactic to allow us to continue in our greedy ways and not face our responsibilities to the earth and to others.

Landrights4all its official! you and I are unlikely to ever agree, on anything.
Why do you think I started a thread about over population?
And put poverty and starvation as products of that problem?
If you looked at my post history you would see many thoughts on worlds poor.
I ALWAYS think we need to end both.
But we first must end over population.
Not to, to say we can fix poverty but have no need to fix its dangers, is not some thing you can get most to consider.
Your well meaning post ignores reality by miles.
It is getting increasingly hard to get nations and people to donate.
IF the donation funded birth control, food housing education and all that is required for a better life, not just more mouths we could fix it.
Do not craft your begging bowl on us giving more with out results,or starvation will be forever.

Hi belly - while I do think we should be giving more, my last post was actually about taking less. That is to say, we are the major cause of the problem because we are taking too much and certainly more than our share. Furthermore we are modelling this way of life for the third world to follow. For them to choose a different path the smartest thing we could do would be to model a low consumption more highly attractive alternative. Unfortunately when they look at us now what they see is all that glitters - but it is not gold. Our way of life is unsustainable, unhealthy, and unjust. Many would also say it is unfulfilling.

I see what you are thinking but in your post is why we will not agree.
Now England gutted its colony's, none more than India.
It too left SOME planks that built the place.
I can find no reason to think we EVER will find even many, less a majority who do want to give up western life styles.
And in truth while we over consume can not see how we help directly by not.
I actually think we should give, more and often,but for proving out comes.
If every one of us, every Australian resident, gave each week, on behalf of our selves and our kids $1= $52 a year 23 million people, on top of our country and our own personal gifts to Charity's.
We could send each year every cent to one nation to help end poverty.
I have no problem in saying if ten cents in the dollar made it I would be surprised.
First build the platform/will to make it work