alzo: would you accept pop control if it were backed by referendum? if yes, then we need democracy. if no, then you're not really in favor. why not, by the way?

capitalist societies 'externalize' the cost of labor when possible, which seems to make it undesirable for the workforce to replenish itself. so, yes, population would fall if not supplemented by immigration. but there is immigration, the government loves 'growth' as it covers some failures in planning. and it rewards the business and union supporters of election campaigns with cheap labor and new recruits in the low paid or industrial jobs that are still union dominated.

the pm announced that the murray-darling irrigators were going out of business recently. i bet he would rather have publicly eaten worms out of a toilet bowl. if that didn't convince you oz is nudging it's human carrying capacity, the event that does will probably be fatal.

it's not that there's not enough water, oil, fish, trees, etc. - that's just the reflection of the problem: too many people.

Demos , I agree with you -too many people for our resources .
We haven't followed Noah's example .
We continue to kick species off the Ark .Eventually if we keep it up ,the good Lord will bring us back to earth with a thud -literally .

DEMOS, as we discovered when we were asked whether we wanted a republic or not, the result turned on the method, not the principle.

More Australians were actually in favour of the vague and woolly idea that we should be a republic than were against it. However, the devil is, as always, in the detail. If not the monarchy, what then? How about a dictatorship? No? well, how about a directly elected head of state? No? How about... etc etc.

It is the same with "population control".

It is easy to ask "would you prefer to live in Australia as she is now, or in a 'concrete box 3m x 3m x 2m?'" and get the answer you want.

It is far more difficult to say, ok, you voted for polulation control, would you prefer a) to buy a ticket if you want to have a child, b) participate in a lottery if you want to have a child, c) involuntarily euthenase one member of your family for each child you have etc. etc.

Because that is the reality. Of course we don't want to live in a concrete box, but neither do we want to kill off granny just to make way for little Justin.

If you have an intelligent option that will solve the "how", then you might find more people interested in the "what".

Pericles -: " Niether do we want to kill off granny to pay for little justin"

What say we kill off all the preists around the world who wont allow birth control instead.

George bush recently shut down a womens clinic that provided birth control in an underdeveloped country (I forget which), because of his religious beliefs and the idea that the pill may cause instant abortion because he found out about the hormones in the morning after pill.

How many leaders from all the countries in the united nations are in favour of setting up family planning clinics all over the world and are busy organising it. Are they too busy taking billions in aid
and using it for other things because its against their religious and male beliefs.

Overpopulation will always result in pressures like poverty and famine that lead to wars. Also mass immigration as people flee these overpopulated hell holes looking for a better life in less populated countries. This in turn has lead to millions and millions of deaths from ethnic cleansing as ethnic tensions arise between the newcomers and the resident tribes both seeking control of the available resources.

There is also the driving to extinction of some of the wonderful animals on the earth as mankind demands further and further territory and resources. I did not see the programme crude impact but I wish I had as I have always felt that overpopulation is the driving force behind most of the worlds problems. War, famine, global warming, animal extinctions and yet there seems to be little done in a practical nature by the united nations to deal with it.

Yet they say they want peace on earth.

This seems to be a common theme here sharkfin:

>>I have always felt that overpopulation is the driving force behind most of the worlds problems. War, famine, global warming, animal extinctions and yet there seems to be little done in a practical nature by the united nations to deal with it<<

Sadly, the only reason that you are able to think this way is because you are so unbelievably privileged, in an economic sense, to have been brought up in a rich country.

In the eyes of the African farmer scratching a $1 a day living out of a dirt patch, there is no discernible difference between you and Bill Gates.

"Population" in the farmer's mind is all about the basic need to produce more hands to help scratch in the dirt. Unless and until that basic need is replaced by a viable economic alternative, "population control" can only mean the rich exerting their will over the poor.

It is after all no accident that as a generalization, the richer the populace, the lower the birth rate.

And moaning about overpopulation is simply a luxury that the rich indulge in when they are upset by the price of petrol, or the lack of rain.

Perecles is partly right when he says that overpopulation is the cause of the current world pain in many areas. However this too is simplistic as most observations by we mortals are. A far more serious part of the problem of dwindling resources is that we in the developed countries are greedy and short-sighted. We take more than our fair share of the worlds resources and we recognise no limit.

The "African farmer" together with his large family takes very little. He is only a threat to the world when he tries to mimic the "freedom loving, progressive, democratic, affluent ( and suicidal) citizens of the developed countries. The world's resources are already under strain now when only a quarter of the people alive are hooked on the "growth" drug. The damage is being done by the affluent not the poor. America, with about one 1/20th of the world's population believes that it is OK to consume about 1/4 of the world's resources. We in Australia probably have an even worse footprint. We are the guilty ones not the Africans.

The culpability for this problem must be gauged on a per capita basis unless you believe an Australian is more important and worth more than say an African. Our lifestyle perhaps takes some 30 times more from this planet than does that of the "African farmer". Our politicians worship growth. We are the ones fiddle the numbers so that it is not economic to recycle. The "African farmer" will recycle everything and exerts little demand on the planet's diminishing resources. Our value system has no respect for the limited nature of the planets resources and it has no respect for a fair go for other people. I suspect that the increase of the world's population ( although a serious problem in its own right ) is only about 1/10th of the resource depletion problem that is represented by the greed and economic growth in the industrialised world. This is a moral issue. If we need "trendy" documentaries to get the message through, so be it.