Ah, Pericles, your faith in technology borders on religious fanaticism. We can't even dispose of our current waste products, let alone those of another few billion humans. Wise people look at human nature as a whole. We’re not that different from most so-called higher social animals apart from clever tool making that’s enabled us to over breed, build war machines capable of horrendous mass destruction, deforest the planet and destroy the biological systems in which we evolved. Instead of thinking rationally to prevent problems we race blindly into using new technologies that merely create larger problems, then pretend, like you, that everything will eventually be sorted, and wait till catastrophe overtakes us. Do you really think the human desire for more, more more - our insatiable dissatisfaction with the present way is miraculously going to change and we'll reach stability and become enlightened gurus contented to sit and ponder?
As for the extinction of species we don't know exist, no one knew about penicillin before the second world war, but it was there and turned out to be not only useful, but like every organism that has survived, essential to the complete eco-system. Unfortunately for us, our type of brain has turned out to be an evolutionary disaster and so we're on an express train to extinction; just like all the other species that have perched for a while on top of the food chain.

That wasn't the point, david f.

>>It is not weeping, wailing and donning sackcloth to try to live sustainably or to try to limit our population.<<

Of course we should try to live sustainably. It is the intelligent thing to do.

And while we do so, hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are using the technology (made possible by the energy and resources available to us) to take the next steps towards global self-sufficiency.

As for limiting our population, by all means don't have children if it makes you feel bad. But please stop telling everyone else what they should or should not do.

And you are quite correct, ybgirp, that this world will not sustain human population indefinitely. The heat-death of the sun will guarantee that. But for the life of me I cannot see the value in moaning about it.

>>...we're on an express train to extinction; just like all the other species that have perched for a while on top of the food chain.<<

If you are right, then surely the only possible reaction is to enjoy the journey. Science and technology will find a way to navigate a few more bumps in the road along the way, but you are right, the end is inevitable. Retreating into caves and living off leaves is not going to change that.

Dear Pericles,

What other people do can affect me. If other people destroy the livability of the planet it affects me and my descendents. What others do that doesn't affect me is their own business. What others do that affects me is very much my business. I am concerned about the world my descendents and other people will live in.

Well of course it does, david f. That is not in dispute.

>>Dear Pericles, What other people do can affect me. If other people destroy the livability of the planet it affects me and my descendents<<

The actions of others by definition affect you and me and our descendents.

However, short of establishing a tyrannical dictatorship, that does not give you licence to take control of their lives.

>>...we must control our numbers and adopt sustainable practices<<

Who exactly are "we" in this context?

And how do you suggest that "we" control our numbers without simultaneously trampling on the right of others to exist on this planet? Perhaps you believe that you have some kind of enhanced right in this respect, thanks to the accident of your birth and the privileges that this has accorded you?

By far the best way to help the world survive longer is to eliminate poverty, rather than eliminate people. It is also easier. We have the technology to be able to have a reasonable stab at this over the coming decades, thanks in no small measure to the exploitation of the earth's resources that you folk complain about ad nauseam.

I'd prefer to engage in these developments, rather than live off berries in a Tasmanian commune. Which appears to to be the pinnacle ecological aspiration of most "small-footprint" Greenies I have met.

Dear Pericles,

There are non-coercive means of lowering the birth rate. Women who are educated are likely to have fewer babies. Not only does that lower the population pressure, but that also contributes to the elimination of poverty. We can also lower the birth rate by increasing human rights. One right is that of a woman to decide on an abortion and then having access to the best medical procedure for it. Another right is to have adequate contraceptive measures for those who want them. The above methods of controlling population expand human rights and dignity. Tyrannical dictatorships in general have pushed for an expanding birth rate so they can slaughter who they define as the other.

Exploitation of the world’s resources in a non-sustainable manner insures future conflicts where people fight for a share of dwindling resources. We have a limited supply of water and other resources. Technology does not come free. It costs to clear up a polluted watercourse. It is much cheaper to avoid polluting it in the first place. However, costs are not spread evenly. It may be cheaper for some to dump their wastes into a watercourse rather than pay for adequate sewage disposal. It is sensible to have laws requiring adequate sewage disposal. This involves preventing some people from doing what they want which might be to defecate in a stream. I think that form of coercion is legitimate.

I have no desire to live off berries in a Tasmanian commune. However, I want to use our resources in a sustainable manner and adopt non-coercive measures to limit our population.

Technology both solves and creates problems. My working experience has been as a design engineer and a professor of operations research and mathematics.

People who do not know much about technology (I do not know whether you are one of them.) may have an unjustified fear of technology as an evil force. They may also have an unjustified faith in technology to solve all problems.

We can use technology to solve problems but recognise its limits.

I'm pleased to hear that, david f

>>There are non-coercive means of lowering the birth rate. Women who are educated are likely to have fewer babies. Not only does that lower the population pressure, but that also contributes to the elimination of poverty.<<

I absolutely agree. However, this requires the very latest in technology, to bring education closer to the target audience, and resources, to provide the energy needs required to do so. A signal example, in fact, of the folly of making a religion out of blindly cutting back on energy usage, energy which would otherwise help solve the problems that we face.

>>Tyrannical dictatorships in general have pushed for an expanding birth rate so they can slaughter who they define as the other.<<

That is one kind of tyrannical dictatorship. But where along the spectrum of tyranny would you care to place a one-child policy?

>>It may be cheaper for some to dump their wastes into a watercourse rather than pay for adequate sewage disposal. It is sensible to have laws requiring adequate sewage disposal.<<

Laws don't provide sewage disposal. Money (resources and technology) do.

>>However, I want to use our resources in a sustainable manner and adopt non-coercive measures to limit our population.<<

I agree, especially with the idea of allowing people the dignity of free will in their personal choice of family size.

Education and free trade are our biggest weapons against the urge to over-populate, so by definition we concentrate our efforts there. Addressing the issue at source, as it were, rather than attacking the symptoms.

>>We can use technology to solve problems but recognise its limits.<<

Which particular limits did you have in mind?