Reading about Zimbabwe a country ruled by idiots from its foundation, seems they do not even have safe drinking water
And not enough capital to buy the chemicals needed to clean what they have
Parts of the African continent are always in famine, what then of population
We know how many cows we can run on how many hectares and how good the grass is, will we ever learn that about human population?
Is over population driving refugee flows? if so it will get far far worse as we ignore population growth in some parts of the world

Belly,
religious zealots insist that it is better to have millions suffer a miserable existence than have birth control !

If we look no only at the African continent but the sub continent too, focus on such as Bangladesh
Quality of life is deplorable,and even if you oppose aid, think about future refugee flows
Some parts of this world are over populated
And this time individual is in part right, religions stall change encourage more births stall true reform
Some say in every thread near this subject the world is not over populated
Think then of our country, the bush, our outback
We can not provide infrastructure to deliver water to towns almost out, rail road air transport too suffers
What if ten million of us lived in such towns

Dear Belly,

Poverty demands that families are large, as not every
child born is going to sustain his or her life for
long.

Each child is another pair of hands to be put to work
drawing water from distant wells, weeding minuscule
vegetable plots and, if adulthood is reached, to be sent
to the city to find work where the bulk of subsistence wage
can be sent home.

If very lucky, this son or daughter will find work in a
distant foreign land (where he or she will not necessarily
be welcomed) and larger sums of money will be repatriated.

Poverty is one of the problems we face in the 21 century.
Over population is another. Humans have the intelligence,
the tools and the natural resources to provide for a
good, sustainable life as long as there are not so many humans
that we exceed the globe's carrying capacity.

All the evidence suggests that we must turn around
population growth and aim for a much smaller
population than we have today.

How we do this - especially in the poorer regions of the
world is something that needs to be discussed and action
taken.

It is not that parts of the world are overpopulated.
New York London Melbourne and Sydney are overpopulated.
The problem with Africa is that the farmers do not plant crops as their government and/or terrorists will steal the crops as soon as they are grown.
Sub Sahara Africa is fast becoming a desert as the farmers see no future in staying and the young people are moving to Europe to overpopulate the Cities of Europe.
India and China have massive populations yet with strong governments they are able to feed themselves.
South Africa once the richest country in Africa is fast becoming a basket case as the African mafia take over the country.
It is interesting that European Colonial Empires were able to turn waste lands into productive properties.
The great con in the world today is that so called independent countries in Africa have become slave nations with their government officials forcing the population to work for little or no pay.

Very true Foxy, however look here in our developed country
We are about to spend less on dams for farmers than we will helping America go back in space
Constant growth is insanity but constant improved lifestyle may be the best way
I see nothing to justify over population

It is not only "parts" of the world that are overpopulated, but this whole planet.

Apparently some scribe was lazy or wanted to save on shards/scrolls, so when they copied God's blessing, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth", they omitted the sunset clause, that "until" which explained when "full" is full enough. They must have thought: "this is superfluous, it is unrealistic, humans are so few, it will never happen anyway so this is not worth the scroll it would be written on" - well they were wrong and it did happen, about 2,000 years ago and since then this world is overpopulated and like the sorcerer's apprentice, we don't know how to stop it!

For any quality of life, for dignity and freedom, to fulfil the full human potential rather than sardine potential, we ought to reduce human global population to around 100-200 millions. If we fail to do so willingly, then nature will do it for us but in a more painful manner.

If you truly believe the world needs to reduce population Yuyutsu, go for it, we'll watch & cheer. The world could feed a much larger population if needed. In my district alone there are thousands of acres of good farm land doing nothing but running a few cattle. They aren't farmed because people are not completely stupid.

Growing food in Oz except broad acre crops or in very large industrial style farms is a recipe for bankruptcy. The returns are so poor. We had an incredibly industrious Vietnamese family start a market garden on about 20 acres of top land on the river a couple of kilometers up stream. They worked their butts off, but earned little. The council jumped on them when they had a little honest customer stall on the side of the road.

They now run a couple of trucks, the farm lies fallow, & they eat much better.

If ever growing food becomes viable financially, hundreds would love producing it.

Dear Foxy,

You and Belly seem to have been sucked in by the "Poverty dictates big families" argument. My recollection of the argument is that it gets trotted out by senior ministers of countries with a high birth rate. I am amazed how gullible people are to believe that a man (let's face it, all of these countries are patriarchys) should known how all the women in his country think. Would you consult one person if you wanted to know what all the women in Australia thought? To do so for any country, in my opinion, betrays a stereotyping that was commonplace in our past.

What is understood about fertility is that populations stabilise if contraception is made available. Given very clumsy past programs, current programs risk being labelled as benign genocide.

Belly,

4 decades ago Zimbabwe was extremely prosperous. It fell into ruin not because of the incompetence of the new government, but rather its kleptocracy and greed.

The same thing happened in Kenya, Zambia, the Congo (Zaire) etc and is now happening in South Africa.

Fester,

The book by Professor Tor Hundloe "From Buddha to
Bono: Seeking sustainability".

Today we desperately seek solutions to climate
change, water scarcity, pollution, over population,
and Third World poverty.

It's worth a read.

Shadow Minister,

Took the words out of my mouth. I was half way through writing a similar post when your's came through.

One thing you missed however is that many of these kleptocrats who stole their nations wealth were Marxists.

Belly raised Zimbabwe. Well it fell into poverty at the hands of Marxists.

Communist Muagbe died a US$ billionaire.

South Africa is also embracing Marxism.

There's an old saying. In capitalism, the rich get powerful. In Communism, the powerful get rich.

Zimbabwe is just a snapshot of Africa. Africa in all the years prior to
the arrivals of Europeans was in a primitive state toward which it is
now retreating. They did not even invent the wheel.
They do not seem capable of building a country up to European standards
from scratch. Unfortunately the countries and cities that European
colonialists build are gradually decaying.

I know the above will offend some people but show me where I am wrong.

Shadow Minister mhaze agree, in fact welcome that truth in to the thread
But results of those truths and needless wars is famine, in country's that would struggle to not be having one
Water, again look at how we get it to grow food, even here
We do make good income as a country from our food producers milk beef mutton not the only things
Wool while not food requires water
WHY has the UN been unable to stop wars? in the mentioned country's, what is the use of the UN?
See most agree the world, at least in parts is already over populated
Transferring that over population to the western world is not the answer
Birth control? it would need to be forced on most

Dear Hasbeen,

I agree with you that "The world could feed a much larger population if needed" - but that's not the issue. We are feeding all those numbers already and would technically be able to feed even more, but what for? what is the purpose of life and what value does it have if we are all regimented and live alike like sardines?

"man doth not live by bread only" [Deuteronomy 8:3]

One thing for sure it makes no sense to murder our unborn especially with an aging population and then have to rely on immigration to fill jobs. Pretty sick and sad.

"man doth not live by bread only" [Deuteronomy 8:3]
Yuyutsu,
And, "Man must have a beer to go with the Bread" [Individual 1:1]

Thank you, Foxy.

From what I have read I get the impression that the issue is voluntary access to contraception by women. I get concerned when I see stereotyping that suggests high fertility is intrinsic to specific populations, but I will look up your link.

Cheers

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/mar/08/rise-use-contraception-global-population-growth-family-planning

Dear Foxy,

You asked how do we turn population growth around. There is an answer but I doubt if humankind has enough time left on this planet to put the solution into effect. World population is just under 8 billion and will reach 11 billion within the next 30 years.

An interesting question is how did we get into this runaway population growth? In 1900 the world population was 1.6 billion; in 1985 it had reached 5 billion, being the world's sustainable population limit; and now 7.8 billion. 10,000 years ago it was about 8 million. So it increased by 1.6 billion in 10,000 tears then by another 6 billion in 120 years. What happened? Why all of a sudden did it just jump by 6 billion in only 120 years?

Dear Mr Opinion,

The causes of rapid population growth?

You ask why is population increasing at such a speed
in the less developed nations? The main reason is a change
and resulting imbalance in the ratio of births to deaths.

The death rate in these societies has been sharply reduced by
the introduction, however haphazard, of modern standards of
sanitation, nutrition, and medicine - but the birth
rate has remained extremely high.

In the industrialised societies, similar innovations in
public health occurred over many decades, and there
was time for cultural values about family size to adjust in
the changed material conditions.

In the newly developing nations, however, vaccinations,
sewage systems, pesticides, and new dietary practices have
been introduced with dramatic suddenness, causing a sharp
drop in death rates while the birth rates remain at or
near their previous levels.

A complicating factor is that the less developed countries
are facing rapid population growth at a time when they
already have very large populations - so even a small
annual growth rate produces huge numbers of babies.

Given this sharp decline in death rates and an already
existing population strain why have birth rates remained
high in the less developed nations?

The reason is that people everywhere are reluctant to accept
changes in cultural values, particularly those related to
family. In many traditional societies a man's virility
is gauged by the number of children he fathers, and most
traditional societies emphasize the domestic role of
the wife as mother and child rearer.

Poorly educated people in a tradition-bound society may have
difficulty appreciating that the value of a large family
has changed within the course of a generation or so.

Even today, in fact, a large family may serve important
functions for parents in developing countries. In countries
that lack a system of social security, children provide the
only guarantee that one will be looked after in old age.

Foxy is only partly right.
One of the main keys to growth is energy.
Energy from coal & steam power on farms and the industrial revolution.
It all enabled the progress Foxy mentioned and the areas with the
largest growth had their living standards & medicine improved enormously by colonialism.

Overpopulation will not be contained to the developing world. For instance, Africa's skyrocketing population is already spilling into Europe and it's only going to accelerate.

In his book 'The Scramble for Europe: Young Africa on its way to the Old Continent', African Studies professor Stephen Smith estimates that at least 100 million Africans will try to make their way to Europe by the middle decades of this century.

From the book's summary:

"Today, 510 million people live inside EU borders, and 1.25 billion people in Africa. In 2050, 450 million Europeans will face 2.5 billion Africans – five times their number. The demographics are implacable. The scramble for Europe will become as inexorable as the ‘scramble for Africa’ was at the end of the nineteenth century, when 275 million people lived north and only 100 million lived south of the Mediterranean. Then it was all about raw materials and national pride, now it is about young Africans seeking a better life on the Old Continent, the island of prosperity within their reach. If Africa’s migratory patterns follow the historic precedents set by other less developed parts of the world, in thirty years a quarter of Europe’s population will be Afro-Europeans."

http://www.amazon.com/Scramble-Europe-Young-Africa-Continent/dp/1509534563

Africa's problems will become Europe's problems too.

Dear Bazz and Foxy,

What you describe is a small part of the answer and fails to explain the reason as to why all of a sudden world population skyrocketed from 1900 rising by 6 billion in only 120 years whereas it took 10,000 years to get to 1.6 billion. Something else had happened. What was it? The answer is a lot simpler than what you might think.

FrankU well said and confirms my words refugee flows are a product of over population
Too did we see those teenagers in chains this morning? in was it Nigeria?
Held hostage by a middle ages type Islamic School they enforce the view that part of that faith is still in the dark ages
And too is uninterested in living standards of Africans
In time humanity will understand constant growth is wrong, and leads to over population
We here see our city's strangled by over population and see calls for more growth because more consumers brings more houses and food sale more of every thing but common sense

No Opin, energy is the enabler of everything.
It does not matter what area you consider without cheap energy
nothing happens.
Progress from pre Roman times to the 16th century was in slow stages
just relying on slaves and animal power.
Then it just suddenly took off over 100 years from mid 17th century.
Steam was king, Britain suddenly became the world number one power
and slavery became too expensive.
Travel times reduced dramatically.
Railways demanded faster communications and here we are today, keyboard warriors !

Dear Bazz,

Wrong answer! Put your interchangeable BAZZ / DUNCE hat on and go and sit at the back of the room with Hasbeen, ttbn, Loudmouth, individual and mhaze. If you all promise to stay quiet I'll let you play Swap The Dunce Hat with each other.

Before some of us wet ourselves about massively rapid population growth, let's face the statistical realities that:

* . world population growth is slowing down, and will stabilise by around 2100, and then decline.

* . that population in many developed countries is either stable or gradually declining already (as ours would be without immigration), and

* . that the more technologically developed a country may be, the more able it is to handle higher populations. After all, there are no African countries with the population density of, say, the Netherlands.

Frankly, I suspect a certain amount of racism in this 'debate', that the countries which some of you here are getting hysterical about tend to be non-white, and that some 'remedies' which some of you would dearly love to promote involve the sterilisation or extermination of non-white populations in order to - what ? Save the rest of us more civilized and deserving folk ?

Contemptible.

Joe

promote the sterilisation or extermination of non-white populations in order to - what ?
Loudmouth,
I have always advocated birth control for families of more than 3 children in order to eliminate so much human suffering AND to reduce pollution. How do you manage to get Race in to this ?

World over populated?

Can that be turned around. Yes

I have said this before on many occasions and there is a need to say once again. The answer lies in two countries. Thailand and Iran.

If you google 'family planning' in either country you will see that both countries reduced the birth rate for women from 6 per woman down to about 2 per woman, simply by education on contraception and the government supplying the means.

So government sponsored family planning does work to reduce birth rates, it has been tried and tested and is what the UN should be concentrating on, especially in countries that are often subject to famine.

It is up to people, like on this forum, to spread the word that will put pressure on governments and the UN to act.

I invite all readers to google 'family planning' in either Thailand or Iran and read how they did it. Do not just sit there and wring your hands and say we cannot stop the world from over populating.

If Iran and Thailand can do it, so can all countries that try.

Henry,

Not just family planning, but huge efforts (now in decline in Iran) to educate women. Everywhere, the more education that women seize, the later they marry, the fewer kids they have, and (hopefully) the more power they have over their lives, even in patriarchal societies.

Even in Iran, with the ayatollahs trying to discourage women from getting out from under the patriarchy, women are not likely to turn back to having less education and more babies.

And in China, even with the reversal of the idiotic one-child policy, after more than a generation of it, young adults - themselves products of that policy - are not having any more kids just because the policy has been relaxed. My bet is that, in the next generations in China, people will have either no kids or only one, and rarely any more - and that China's population will stabilise by mid-century and start to decline. In fact, it will be kept high for a time only because people will be living longer.

The lessons seem to be that, once women have more equality in their choices, once they have access to higher education, they will be slightly less likely to marry, and they will either have no kids or far fewer than their mothers and grandmothers did. And that once a society condones no-kids, or one-kid, or very-few-kids, there is no return.

Joe

Dear Mr Opinion,

Without the Industrial Revolution the world's
population - and the resultant pressure on
natural resources - would not have grown much,
if at all, from its number of approximately
on billion in 1825. It took under 200 years,
to the year 2000, for human population to increase
six fold to six billion. We had to wait from
about year zero ( the birth of Jesus Christ) to
1800 for the previous six-fold increase.

We must never lose sight of the vast number of us
humans on the planet. If the brakes are not
applied now we certainly will be in plague
proportions, and a sustainable future will be
foregone.

We should also note while on the subject of the
causes of population growth that near the end
of the 18th century Edward Jenner developed a
vaccination for smallpox and, as a consequence,
immunology came into existence.

This resulted in
the saving of countless of lives and was to propel
the "population explosion" that was being driven by
other new forces (such as greatly improved
productivity in food production, various break-throughs
in medicine, and, at last, a recognition that urban
filth was a major cause of disease and short life spans.

Between 1825 and 1923 the world's population virtually
doubled.

I won't go through all the history of
breakthroughs in technology - except to say that life
spans were expanded significantly -
in other words - it was the progress in medicine,
immunology and sanitation coupled with the transformation of
subsistence-scale farming to large-scale agriculture that
allowed for the take-off and rapid increase of the
world's population.

All the evidence today suggests that
we must turn around population growth
and aim for a much smaller population
than we have. Already there are highly developed European
countries where - regardless of religion - the population
is declining.

We find that South Koreans, Singaporeans,
Japanese and Chinese have minimal births per woman,
are becoming concerned
about birth rates. Politicians such as Peter Costello who
at one stage promoted large families - need to stop doing so
today.

Racism? twat! truth some times gets some claiming that
Now if mankind found a way to get all its power for free, say using water, that would only empower more over population
If we say continued growth is good and used this free fuel to put ten million in our out back,we would cripple that land, it has not got the soil to grow much

Its the same old Malthusian rubbish.

They've been telling us since the 18th century that population growth will out-pace food supplies.

From Malthus to Ehrlick to Club or Rome, and so on and so on, they predict doom and the usual crowd buy it.

But they were wrong - they are always wrong. And yet here we are, the same crowd, utterly uneducated as to the past errors, making the same false presumptions, making the same errors of fact, making the same misunderstanding as to the maths...and assuming that they are the enlightened ones.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so dangerous. It dangerous because the Malthusian impulse is so pervasive that it coerces governments into making the wrong decisions. And it allows carpet-baggers to fleece all and sundry.

Here's something to those who believe both in the we're-all-gunna-die from famine rubbish and the we're-all-gunna-die from warming theory.

The IPCC predictions about the future are based on predictions about the future global economy. You can't predict future emissions if you don't know what the future economy will be like.

Here's the kicker. These predictions say that Nigeria will be as rich per person in 2100 as the US was in 2000 after adjusting for inflation.

Now you can't believe simultaneously that Nigeria will be overwhelmed by famine while also being as wealthy as the wealthiest nation currently is. So either the prediction about famine is wrong OR the prediction about future economy is wrong. And if the economic predictions are wrong, so is the predictions about future warming.

So you'll have to drop one of your disaster scenarios. Or just engage the cognitive dissonance part of the brain.

Dear Loudmouth,

Your premise that educating women results in decreasing population growth is not valid.

The solution lies in keeping women in the workplace longer instead of at home having children, thus lowering the fertility rate in the society. To get women to make a choice of staying in the workplace requires providing them with incentives viz higher salaries, higher occupational status, more jobs for women, etc. Put all the women in charge of running the office and put all the men in the house dependent on the income of their working wives and watch how population growth will plummet overnight.

And of course this works best in an industrialized society. That's why we are seeing population declining in developed countries and rising population growth in developing countries dependent primarily on agricultural production.

Dear Foxy,

There is a much simpler answer. Think FOOD.

Joe,
I disagree with your assumption that racism plays a part in wanting to reduce the world population. It is fact that the western world has a low population growth rate than most third world countries and I believe that most people are like me in that I hate to see those pics of starving kids and crying babies. I also hate to see pics of women and kids sleeping in the streets and selling sex and begging from tourists, like in the Phillipines and some South American countries.

I think you also may find that the governments in Thailand and Iran (at the time) not only educated about contraception but supplied the means. So it was not only education that lowered the birthrate in those countries.

The point is that these countries showed that lowering the birthrate can be achieved if governments set their mind to it, without hard or draconian measures.

Here it is again for the umteenth time
A letter to the Women of the World by Hans Hass

Henry,

You misunderstand - I'm certainly not saying that it's racist to aspire to reduce world population growth. But there does seem to be a focus on imposing 'solutions' on developing countries as if they are the problem. My point is that there is less of a problem now with declining population growth - in many countries, population is either stable or declining, certainly barely growing, and population is being maintained by people living longer, not by some 'explosion' of births - and by immigration, i.e. a transfer of working population from one country or region to others.

So what if a quarter of the population of some countries will be newcomers who provide the necessary labour to keep those societies going ? Is that the unspoken (and utterly idiotic) fear ?

Joe

Henry L agree, at last racism is not part of over population religion is
And can not agree with mhazes post, not at all
If we distributed food evenly all over the world, in time population growth would see us not be able to do it
Population as highlighted in Fox's post is relatively new in humanity's history
And it, left alone, would increase hugely in that amount of time if we let it
Growth in any thing can not be forever

Growth in any thing can not be forever
Belly,
I wouldn't bet on that, just look at the growth of ignorance of the Lefties !

We have the ability to feed everyone right now. The Netherlands is showing the way by being a huge food exporter all grown there. Population control is also well within our grasp The contraceptive pill effectively reduced population world wide.
The real question is do we want continual growth and it is a question that should be asked. Whether our vacuous politicians would welcome us pulling them up every ten years is a different question. Have a referendum every ten years as a constitutional imperative and see what transpires.

individual,

Obviously the poor "Lefties" are clearly no match
for your level of reasoning.

Dear Mr Opinion,

I thought that I've already explained about
agriculture ie -food.

mhaze: "Its the same old Malthusian rubbish."

So, is it fair to assume that you don't believe that there are any limits to exponential human population growth? You don't accept that more people means more pressure on the environment and biophysical support systems and an acceleration of resource depletion rates? You don't accept that humanity is trashing our only planet and that more people will only make this unsustainable situation worse, not better?

All the evidence suggests to me that more is not merrier and that rapid population growth usually results in more pain than comfort. In most countries, a rapidly expanding population effectively strangles efforts to provide better per capita levels of education, nutrition, health care, employment and housing and almost guarantees enduring poverty.

As the late Garrett Hardin said about population: "The maximum is not the optimum."

the poor "Lefties
Foxy,
there's no such people.

Loudmouth: "But there does seem to be a focus on imposing 'solutions' on developing countries as if they are the problem."

Well, given that these countries are the source of rapid population growth, one cannot address the overpopulation issue without focusing on the developing world. Sorry but there is no way around that. Screaming 'racisss!' at people is just wrong and unhelpful.

"So what if a quarter of the population of some countries will be newcomers who provide the necessary labour to keep those societies going?"

I'm not sure why any country, having stabilised its own population, should be compelled to accept the surplus populations of other countries. That sounds like a form of imperialism to me. If every country took reasonable measures to stabilise its population, the world would collectively be in a much better position (and probably a lot happier too).

In any case, importing labour is not necessary to keep developed societies 'going'. Automation and the more effective use of the existing labour force will support the demographic transition. A lot of the jobs that currently exist in developed countries are BS and will disappear in a tighter labour market.

individual,

You should get out more.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Regarding food - we know that in recent decades
there's been impressive growth in food production which has been
attributed to the development of improved disease-resistant
varieties of stable crops, the increased use of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides and the expansion of irrigated cropland.

Nevertheless food production declined in many developing
countries - in some areas loses from poor land management have
erased the benefits which had been gained, consequently
developing countries food imports are rising dramatically to
compensate for local deficits.

A country's ability to feed itself very much depends on
the availability of arable land, accessible water and
population pressures. The more people there are especially
in poor countries with limited amounts of land and water the
fewer resources there are to meet basic needs. In some poor
countries attempts to increase food production and
consumption are undermined by rapid population growth, by
migration from rural to urban areas, by unequal land
distribution, by deepening rural poverty and of course by
widespread land degradation.

Lower birth rates, along with better management of land and
water resources are necessary to avert chronic food shortages.

Shadow Minister: "4 decades ago Zimbabwe was extremely prosperous. It fell into ruin not because of the incompetence of the new government, but rather its kleptocracy and greed."

Ethnically cleansing some of its most productive citizens and seizing their farms didn't help either.

Tragically, it seems the racist, neo-Marxist government in neighbouring South Africa wants to go down the same path.

Dear Foxy,

Yes you are on the right track. The answer I was looking for is the Haber-Bosch process developed in the first decade of the 20th century. It enables the production of nitrate fertilisers. This method spread immediately around the world enabling large scale food production which meant that arable areas could support many more people than conventional farming techniques were hitherto able to at the time. The use of nitrate fertilisers escalated from the early 1900s and as food became more available people could support larger families, with a consequential exponential increasing population growth resulting.

The world of politics will change as a result of over population
It already has, see the EU decaying because of refugee intake
Now tell me I am wrong but if a country can not feed its population it is over populated, or even likely, victim of very bad government
A day will come, watch it, when such country,s are forced in to better government
Because over population exists, is getting worse and will be as big an issue as climate change even globalization

Mr Opinion, here is a suggestion, let farmers get on with their work. Every time some idiot politician, Green loon or armchair warrior pops up it ends in disaster. Googl Ground Nuts Scheme!
Farmers can feed us as they were doing successfully in Zimbabwe until you lot come along burned them out, threw them out and then stole the land for yourselves. Plenty of food about always when farmers are allowed to farm.
Continual growth should be treated as a national issue again not for the corrupt elites to use to drive down everybody else and impoverish them. Majority want mass immigration, fine, if they don’t want it then set a level and allow every voter a say?
As we got Trump and Brexit wrong probably not much chance of that!

Dear JBowyer, I would like to introduce you to runner.

Dear runner, I would like to introduce you to JBowyer.

So what's the problem ?

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#when-will-the-world-population-stop-growing

The population of Europe and Russia is already slowly declining, even adding in the fact that people are living longer. China's population growth is well below replacement rate; so is Japan's and South Korea's. And most of South America's. And that of the US.

Africa has an area five times as big as Europe's. As technology improves in Africa (and India), and as women's equality (and thereby educational opportunities) improves, population growth there will decline. By 2100, Africa will have a population about three times as big as Europe's.

So what's the problem ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I'm not convinced by your thesis that educating a woman will arrest the rate of population growth. Can you please explain to me how it works?

Joe,

The problem is people facing chronic hunger.
Take a look on the www - at what many Africans
face today -

Poverty, drought, conflict, environmental degradation
due to over grazing, deforestation and other types
of environmental damages.

Check out Google.

Somebody mentioned food production: since 1970, world food production has doubled:

https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index6.html

World-wide consumption of vegetable products (including cereals) has slowed as incomes improve and people switch to meat.

But how to keep food production increasing, if only to improve the amount of food consumed per capita ? The continuing increase in production of vegetable crops will be necessary, both to feed humans and to feed the animals that we consume as well. So how to improve strains of food crops on the one hand, and increase the area of cropping and growing land on the other ?

Equatorial areas are fortunate in that they often produce two crops each year already. But it's the world's colder regions which need attention.

Bodies like the CSIRO are doing a good job with the first task of improving food strains. Increasing the area under production may be more long-term. Vast areas of the northern hemisphere, across Europe and Asia and North America would be far more productive if only there was a way to extend the growing areas northwards, and lengthen the growing season to allow more areas to be opened up. How to do that ?

Perhaps if only we could find some way to increase world temperatures across that vast region, perhaps by one or two degrees Celsius, millions of hectares could be made available for food production in areas that are currently too cold, or their growing season too short. So the big problem is how to increase temperatures there.

And of course, vast areas of much more lush country could be carefully opened up in Africa, with widespread irrigation schemes on the biggest rivers in the world.

Any ideas ?

Joe

Misopinionated,

Here's an easy-to-read summary:

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

Let me know if you have trouble understanding it, I'll find other files for you . :)

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Shoving a citation in front of someone's face is not the action of an educated person. You have now shown yourself to be an educated person so you should be capable of providing a succinct answer to my question in your own words.

So again I ask: Can you please explain to me how it works?

Stand by my view world politic is changing because of over population
Hope better government, while it may be forced on some is not dictatorship
Africa has big problems drought and famine in part because of very poor government and wars that maim the whole area
Think we have refugees now? wait until over population truly impacts and millions flee
Too those wars, if one gets truly big a million refugees will be seen in one year
A hungry fear filled human will not sit around and wait to die

Misopinionated,

Christ, this is like trying to talk to an autistic sixteen-year-old.

In developing countries, there are usually no pension systems. So families need to have a lot of kids, given that some will die, so that there will be someone to look after the older people when they can't work any longer.

So in developing societies, the burden falls on women to get married early, have a lot of kids, and forgo any chance of education - plus be under the thumb of men all their lives.

But given the inevitable demographic transition (god, what have I let myself in for ? That means high fertility and a change to low early mortality and longer life-spans, so a period of rapid population growth), which means women don't have to have so many kids. Combined with a progressive push for better women's rights, this may mean much more education for girls and a postponement of marriage, combined with a lower birth rate.

The more choice women have about how and when to have kids in those circumstances, the lower the birth rate required to reproduce society. Even Foucault might maybe have been aware that as birth rates decline, women's education - and rights generally - improve. Nah. Too interested in little North African boys.

China is a case in point, since you are obsessed with Chinese immigration - one outcome of the one-child policy has been the massive improvement in women's education and therefore their employment opportunities - at home and overseas. So win-win - as our population growth falters, more women can migrate to Australia and take up the slack.

Jesus, there's a lot of big words there, Misopinionated. Ask a nearby kid what they might mean.

Joe

Poverty, drought, conflict, environmental degradation
due to over grazing, deforestation and other types
of environmental damages.
Foxy,
you left out too many people to feed !

Joe I don't know why you bother. The bunch you are trying to get to understand never can.

If you are successful you destroy their whole philosophy of life. They have to believe the right is a predator, predating on everyone. If you force them to see that it is the left that rips off the poor, to further their control schemes their whole belief system collapses.

They will fight tooth & nail to resist anything that may force then to see the truth, rather face the fact that they have been useful idiots for so long.

Dear Loudmouth,

You are beating around the bush. I asked you to explain how educating a woman will arrest the rate of population growth and you failed to answer the question. Reason is that you cannot explain your claim simply because it is incorrect. For someone who is telling me he is highly educated you most certainly don't display that quality. And that leaves me wondering.

Mr Opinion, Loudmouth well and truly has your measure, you are in a hole, stop digging.
It is generally accepted that the West wastes a third of its food and the Third World loses half to pests and waste. This gives you some idea of the slack in the system. Don’t worry about food we have more than enough and I am living testimony to that being generously built myself.
I thought the reasons to show education reduces birth rates was common knowledge?
You are living proof that common sense is not that common!

explain how educating a woman will arrest the rate of population growth
Mr Opinion,
Are you really so thick that you need explained what goes without saying ?

read Letter to the women of the World by Hans Hass.

Dear individual,

Then in your own words you can please explain what Loudmouth cannot. You have my full attention.

OK FAIR ENOUGH TOO so poor family's have more kids because so many die
Too because mum and dad need them in their old age and even as kids to grow food
It is quite true
But it too brings about over population
Just suppose a controlling world body said the number of kids we can have is firmly, limited
OK for the very poor to have double that number?
Why not as aid, step in and give them tractors and fuel, food and seed, teaching to show them how to grow food, in part such aid, freely given is an answer to poverty
Aid, properly used is a step in the right direction stopping extreme poverty

Dear JBowyer,

If it's so obvious then why don't you try to explain Loudmouth's thesis in your own words, in a couple of sentences. Loudmouth and individual cannot do it so let's see what you can do. Or do you just want to stick with Loudmouth and individual in saying it's just so simple that it doesn't need explaining?

Belly,

Quite amazing. So you think that people in the developing countries have been sitting around with their thumbs up their arses, waiting for the white man to come along and bring his superior knowledge and culture to save them ? Africans have been farmers for thousands of years, before your and my Neanderthaler ancestors came out of the forests and caves.

Yes, many developing countries have corrupt and incompetent governments, there are often civil wars in some countries, and they are more divided by petty differences than united by overarching similarities and concerns. They'll get over that sooner or later.

And they'll run their own affairs, they don't need any 'world body' to dictate sh!t to them, like you seem to so easily think. In your old age, you forget that do-gooder middle-class people used to have the same pissy attitudes to working-class people here, thinking they knew better. Get over yourself.

Joe

None of Africa's problems is beyond the means
and resources within the continent. What has largely
lacked is proper policy making and implementation.

The Major problems that Africa is facing today 2019
include poor governance, corruption, unemployment,
population growth, insecurity, droughts and famine.

Explanations are offered at:

http://www.africanexponent.com/post/8304-poor-governance-corruption-and-insecurity-major-problems-confronting-africa

Loudmouth wrote:

'Africans have been farmers for thousands of years, before your and my Neanderthaler ancestors came out of the forests and caves.'

Really! He told me he's an Arts grad and I started to believe him. Arts grads don't write crap like this. That's what gives him away.

Misopinionated,

"First Farmers' by Peter Bellwood, is the best introduction to the history of farming. It arose after the last Ice Age (too much history for you ?) in very complex circumstances and in surprisingly few places around the world - northern Mesopotamia (grains), north China (grains), West Africa (grains), Mexico and Peru (maize), and the highlands of New Guinea (root crops like taro and yams).

Sorry about all that history, but we're all the product of it. Okay, maybe not you, the Neanderthals didn't survive the Ice Age. Well, clearly, some did, but they've taken refuge in postmodernist ivory towers and are kept alive only on public funds.

Joe

Attention all. I have decided this opinionated is just a troll and
should be ignored. I will not reply or acknowledge him/her/it in
future and not even read what he posts.

Thanks, Bazz, that's crossed my mind too. Too many of us on OLo have been around the block too many times to pay much attention to ignorant snots like him/her.

Cheers,

Joe

From my understanding, the research indicates that making family planning services available to women is all that is required. Saying that women in poor countries want large families is a slap in the face to them. If the old wives' tale were true, such programs would fail.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP176/index2.html

Mr Opinion, I will bring out the big guns for you! I am one of the eight children my Mother gave birth to alive, there were a couple more who did not make it!
She told me she would never have had so many children and was jealous that the birth control pill came too late for her.
Most women, given the choice would have two or three, stand on me a product of the working class. Born in a council estate just outside London. Not some snot nosed, Namby Pamby little snowflake who will run to management when called out!
Happy to clear that up for you, don’t thank me it’s what I do!

Loudmouth a reality exists here take Zimbabwe yes white men cruelty treated its people
But they did feed them
A brand new way of farming that country took place
Until the recently dead leader took over
He killed by starvation, right now that country is a hell on earth
It needs leadership black white or brindle
And like all of Africa it needs help in learning new and better ways to grow food
Constant growth is insane, racing toward a cliff edge that will kill millions,
Control population, in every race every country and live better lives

Control population, in every race every country and live better lives
Belly,
Exactly ! However, there are people who rather see millions suffer than agree to birth control !

Dear Bazz,

Is that a promise or a threat?

People like you and Loudmouth get caught out and the first thing you do is shout TROLL! and run away from the issue.

You make a statement and then cannot support it. Your sorts of arguments belong in the pub on a Friday night.

Loudmouth is telling us that we are descended form homo sapiens neanderthalensis and when it's pointed out that he made an enormous blunder he clams up. I also asked him to explain his premise that educating a woman results in decreased population growth and he clammed up. These are not the signs of an educated man. A phoney maybe. He didn't even know who Foucault was, which is something I expect every Arts grad to know.

You have my full attention.
Mr Opinion,
read the letter by Dr Hass, it's self explanatory !

Birth control isn't the only way to control the population growth. That said population growth arguments feel shallow if birth control and family restriction policies are supported by the same people who are opposed to tighter immigration control. At that point it's not population control but population replacement.

I'm very much against population control. The core concepts either range in mass scale abortions, government control for familly planning, or open genoside to one population deemed the scapegoat. If a population control method comes around that isn't one of these three horrific acts, then maybe we can revisit population control arguments. Ideas like reevaluate sexual tease marketing, and acceptance of loose pants in general.

A real focus on cultural standards in healthy relationships will cut down many issues that population control is given as a solution. Then the population itself will be better at managing itself. Have that as a cultural moral issue, then our focus can be on making society stable, and harnessing opportunities for the population. Do this then immigration won't be an issue between bleeding hearts welcoming people, and lack of jobs in industries calling for tighter immigration. Instead you'll have a stable society with both opportunity for those who immigrate or are born there, as well as a culture that self manages itself by having stable and reliable families and standards for men and women to live up to in relationships.

Political, religious, and other ideological
influences affect social attitudes concerning
population limitation. Many religions emphasize
some version of the Judeo-Christian injunction to
"be fruitful and multiply."

An old Arab proverb declares that : to have many
children is to be blessed by Allah," and Islamic
religion in several countries is opposed to birth
control.

The Catholic Church, which is particularly influential
in South America - where very high birth rates and grinding
poverty are prevalent almost everywhere - has always
opposed the use of contraceptives.

To complicate matters further, some governments regard
high birth rates as essential for their nations' economic
or political strength.

Orthodox Marxists, have long held that there is no
population problem; there is merely a problem of
exploitation of poor people and poor countries by rich
people and rich countries.

China, in fact adopted a strongly pronatalist policy for
decades after the communist revolution and ended up with
more than 1 billion mouths to feed and the strongest
antinatalist policy in the world.

Ideological shifts on population control can make strange
bedfellows. Less developed nations have argued that economic
development would solve population problems - the US has
argued that "population growth is a neutral phenomenon" and
whose problems can be solved by capitalism.

The reason for the US was domestic politics and not
demography. The Reagan administration wanted to appease the
powerful right-to-life movement which is hostile to
population control because in some countries it may involve
abortion.

Belly,

To claim that the whites treated the blacks cruelly is an unfounded sweeping statement. While their rights were curtailed, and they were treated paternalistically, the vast majority had access to some land, limited but free schooling and health care, and virtually no one starved. While there were some abuses they were very much in the minority.

Compared to the government now, the indigenous population is far worse off and treated far more cruelly.

Shadow Minister not sure how you can ignore that truth, yes whites took over the country and yes changed forever the way they lived
Not sure either how I got involved in Joes racism is what done it thing
Pre white men in Africa its people grew food and fed far smaller population
After the whites, like it or not turned them in to slaves, or near it, they grew in numbers and not longer had the land to grow enough food
Long ago lost by most, those food growing skills no long exist, or can grow enough for the increased population in the current climate
Population, should, even must, be color blind, no one color or race can be targeted
We westerners are hooked, or our leaders are ,on constant growth more consumers more profit
Some [that American standing rock thing] call for far worse than birth control to reduce numbers
Birth control is no going to work without education and that is not for sure
Actions to lift the standard of living for every color every race even faith is a start education must follow
And yes maybe as a last resort control may get a new meaning

Dear Shadow Minister,

Your song book is out of date.

All those bleating about the injustices by Whites upon the Aborigines, would you please stand up & vacate the land you reside upon & hand it back !

Belly,

You certainly can write some unbelievable garbage. Sorry, I don't know where to start on your misconceptions of Africa, I'm too pissed off with wasting my time on half-wits like Misopinionated, so I'll leave it. Do some reading, for Christ sake.

Joe

Oh great - we don't need to hear any more about the
"protections"
that the White man provided the
Indigenous people of the land.

And Belly - if you're going to do any reading -
make sure its all written from the white man's
point of view. Otherwise you'll get corrupted.
(smile).

Foxy,

You completely misunderstand my point, perhaps I should have spelt it out: Africans have been farming for thousands of years. It's possible that agriculture spread from west and north Africa TO Egypt, not the other way around. Until a thousand years ago or so, their technologies were equivalent to those employed in Europe.

The Muslim slave trade with Europeans, and the European imperialism which followed it after the end of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, certainly impoverished many African societies, especially in regions where Europeans could survive, and where land was seized.

But there are not too many regions where, in Belly's imagination, Africa is over-populated - rather, it is currently under-technologised, i.e. its farming technology is under-funded, mainly due to poverty and the corruption and incompetence of governments. Of course, family planning would bring down the birth-rate, but that depends on moves towards greater equality for women, and particularly better educational opportunities for them: better-educated women have more job opportunities, so marry later and have fewer children.

Actually, John caldwell, many years ago, showed that compulsory education from, say, five . until fourteen, massively reduces the birth-rate, since children in rural societies are utilised much less as farm labour, and in fact become a cost rather than an asset for the years they are in school. Even so, in Africa, women and girls seem to still do much of the farm work.

Africa is as big as five Europes (or Australias); it has immense rivers and many potential irrigation projects. It certainly could be far more productive than either Europe or Australia, if the infrastructure was in place. So we come back to poverty and corruption. But it certainly isn't over-populated.

Joe

Loudmouth known your posts for a very long time thought much more of you
But old age gets in the way and you are on the way to being just another angry old fart
I read, boy do I read and tell me the Belgium Congo was civilized talk to me of that British son of unwed parents Rhodes
Talk to me about the lovable Dutch colonialist we called Boer?
I missed the chapters on white saints
Africa today is, [even south Africa] in need of good government
I will continue to read all your posts and wounder is it a must do? must we as we get older become more unfocused and angry?

make sure its all written from the white man's
point of view
Foxy,
If you could kindly please provide indigenous written records from the pre-invasion period, I'd be most interested particularly in a translated version.

After it all said and done, when the white farmers were pushed out of
Zimbabwe the farms were taken over by the people often already living
on those farms or in the district.
Why then did the farms fall into neglect and stop producing food ?
Possibly some had been working on those farms for generations.
This was not a symptom of just the one country.
Sth Africa is already on the way down the same track.
You cannot blame the white man, it has to be the black man.

Within living memory we have the horrors of the Chinese One policy to see what happens when government and/or society sets out on the path of population control.

And yet we still have population control advocates.

There's little point in commenting on their monumental lack of empathy let alone humanity.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Bazz,

My limited understanding of the farm seizure in Zimbabwe is that the farm workers were also expelled, and the lands were taken by ex-guerillas who had rarely been farmers or farm-workers: they assumed that the mere act of seizing the farms would provide good incomes. So both the former managers and the workers on those farms were divorced from production and those who took those assets had little experience of farming. So disaster: the bread-basket of Africa has become a basket-case.

Joe

Hi Mhaze,

Thank you, that's what I was trying to get across, in my clumsy way.

Improving the status of women in agrarian societies has indirect (perhaps inter-generational) effects. It requires the equal (or better) schooling of young girls, so they are taken partly out of production, and the benefits for their families of their better education are a sort of deferred reward for parental sacrifices and expense.

Better schooling means they can postpone marriage, perhaps indefinitely; they can aspire to far better employment opportunities and then decide how to juggle careers with marriage and child-rearing, just as women do here.

They can support their parents better in their old age if they are educated and employed, and provide financially for their own retirement as well. So there are many reasons why better-educated women may have fewer children.

In other words, there is an inverse relationship between women's educational success and the birth-rate. So, as women's status improves, there is less need to ever contemplate any sort of deliberate (let alone compulsory, as some posters here hint at) family planning programs - they will happen.

Joe

Individual,

Go to your local library. They're paid
to help you. I don't have the time or the
crayons to explain things to you.

How is giving women autonomy of their fertility an act of control? Is freedom to choose an act of control? I have always thought of control to be the forcing of a certain outcome upon others. By this definition the denial of family planning services becomes an act of control and its supply confers autonomy.

I just saw a post on page 15 by I want say whom trying to explain how the education of woman results in lower fertility rates. What a load of crap!

Obviously the writer whose name I cannot say is absolutely confused about how the world of people works within a social context. It's easy to see why he doesn't list sociology, history and anthropology among his credits. Plus he took so long to say it that it reminds me of one of my favourite one liners: a man with little knowledge takes a long time to tell you what little he knows.

Education provides an opportunity for women to get high paying and high status jobs. A woman in a high paying high status job will delay having children in order to pursue her career and income earning capacity. If this is a general trend there will result a decline in the fertility rate of the social group. Education is one of the pathways to this end but is not sine qua non for achieving lower fertility rates as he whose name I dare not say would advocate.

Foxy,
There's no written indigenous records from pre-invasion times. All I could find is some Dutch accounts of "the people being treacherous & wretched".

It's easy to see why he doesn't list sociology, history and anthropology among his credits
Mr Opinion,
Simple explanation for that, it doesn't feed the starving nor do the above mentioned prevent more births that the parents are unable to feed.
If those sociologists had an ounce of integrity they would stop wasting taxpayer money & use it to help the underprivileged instead of constantly biting the hands that feed them !

Mr O,

Education and availability of contraception correlate with lower fertility. You can rubbish the attempts to explain it, but the correlation stands. Seeing as you are so dissatisfied with the explanations, perhaps you could set the standard you would like from others and give a real world example of where the correlation has broken down?

Cheers

Loudmouth, yes I think that did happen. However whoever was given the
farm just looked at it and never had the nouse to employ or make an
arrangement with those that might have know how to run a farm.
After the new owners walked off, why didn't the original workers come
back ?
The land is still there and is no one working it ?
The economy jas collapsed. Are they living on aid ?
Frankly I don't think they are capable, no matter what the ownership.

Belly and Foxy,

I am not claiming that the white regime in Rhodesia was correct, however, to claim that the Blacks were slaves or near it is pure bollocks and self inflicted ignorance.

I would suggest that you read book by Peter Godwin called Mukiwa, and perhaps his second book called When the crocodile ate the sun.

The parts of the world that are over populated are also in unstable governments. Either war torn or due to corruption and neglance stripping the people and leaving mass poverty. First element to fight over population isn't population control, but to have stable governments. The second element to fight over population is to have oppurtunities for individuals in the job markets. Industries to support a population and some industries (Not the majority) that require more training or education yo strive for. Those specialized industries will have the effect of helping people to prolong having a family until they finish their career goals, while the other nonspecialized industries will provide a stable income without specialized training both for those who strive for more and don't land a job in their field of study, as well as for those who just go into the job market as soon as they can.

These two things will help a country to manage itself by having the ability to look after it's own people. If that happens then it doesn't matter the family size or population control methods, because you are fixing the issues directly by looking for stability in nations.

We need nation building across the world, not population control schemes.

Dear Uncle Fester,

I didn't say there was no correlation between education and fertility rate.

I did explain how the position of women in the workforce can effect changes in the fertility rate.

It's not me, it's you.

In my rebuttal of loudmouths insult I drifted from his post
Admit I only fully read his after posting my reply
So here go,s yes some parts of the world go hungry because of wars, shortages of water/rain, some [far far too much] because of truly evil government
Even western country's invest in near slave labour,
BUT yes once, pre white man, Africans could and did grow ample food
They DO NOT have the land or tools to do that now, see after the formation of Zimbabwe, white taken from farms and the farms failing
Find good in that, tell me today's combined waste and unavailability of ground and water is not making part of that continent over populated
Taking a stand to defend a race or country , blaming other races or country's, will not its self restore the land

Belly,

There is a massive difference between the productivity of industrial farming with irrigation, farm machinery and fertilizers and subsistence farmers with hand tools of probably 10x for the same land.

Add to this the fact that the confiscated farms were generally given to party bosses and not farmers and you have a man made disaster.

Belly,

To take an extreme example of 'over-population', in terms of people per square kilometre, Singapore would probably take the prize. Is Singapore one of the poorest countries on the planet ?

You have to throw technology and good government into the mix before you airily declare that there is over-population anywhere.

Apropos of nothing much, here's a summary of China's population changes in the next fifty years or so:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/China-s-population-forecast-to-peak-at-1.44bn-in-2029

Rapid decline in birth numbers, and rise in death numbers - those lines will cross in the next ten years. I think it's a bit optimistic about the gentleness of China's population decline - I think it will be more rapid and more savage, countered economically only by the much higher levels of skills and incomes of those Chinese who are young enough to work.

Of course, African countries will be smarter and not try to limit births by decree or force as China has done, but - eventually - by improving educational opportunities, especially for girls and women, and, down the track, being affluent enough to afford to provide old age pensions.

Joe

Shadow Minister agree every word
Loudmouth in fact I think I said such help [machinery training ext] should be given
Singapore does not grow its own food clearly
Let me say this I truly honestly think every tax payer in the western world include Churches and multi nationals, should pay a one percent levee to fund aid
Fair honestly used AID is a start to feeding housing and educating every one
Too that in time, we will know we need to act now, to reduce population stop waste recycle every thing always but by planning not waiting for another war reduce the number [yet to be known] of the world population to manageable levels

Interesting discussion re the loss of productivity of Zimbabwe farms once in the hands of locals. Productive farming is a mind set. It really doesn't work when traditional subsistence farmers are given commercial farms. They simply can't see the point in working as hard as necessary for commercial production.I saw this happen in PNG, but fortunately without the conflict & murder.

In the early 70s we were giving PNG hundreds of millions, [when millions was a lot], in aid. Quite a lot of this was used to buy out white planters, & give the plantations to the local villages. Interestingly the local villages had never worked these plantations, it was always workers imported from other districts, housed on the plantation, that worked them.

It took a while for the penny to drop, but this was disastrous for the PNG economy, & the villagers.

Very quickly a 30 ton a month copra plantation would fall to something like 3 ton a month. The locals just weren't interested in working that hard, they couldn't see the point. From the countries point of view, this rapidly reduced the export income desperately needed. After a few years they realised they were cutting their own throat, & stopped the practice.
Continued.

Continued

For the locals the effect was much worse. With the planter & the income he generated, very soon the power house would stop working from breakdown or just lack of fuel. So no lighting, no power tools, no 2 way radio, & no water pumps.

The same thing quickly happened to the tractors & other vehicles. No slashing meant the coconuts were hard to find in the thickening undergrowth, but worse the light aircraft airstrip soon disappeared under regrowth.

With the reduction in copra for shipment, the copra boats came less often, or not at all. These had supplied the fuel, batteries for radios torches etc, clothing, & bully beef & rice, which had become staples.

No 2 way radio meant medical emergency help could not be summonsed, & there was no where for evacuation aircraft to land.

I don't know about all plantation workers, but I built jetties at 13 isolated plantations, using the plantation work force for much of it. I got to know them pretty well, working closely with them for a month or 2 at a time. In every instance they were not interested in returning to their home villages, much prefer the living standard at the plantation. Most had only signed up to go to a distant plantations, because their village life had been far from pleasant.

In the PNG case aid was used in a detrimental was, & this is often the case.

Hasbeen again agree every word could be mine, watch as some one names us racists
Truth is however worth hearing and Zimbabwe is a show case but not the only country to see such happen
Idi Amin and every leader after did great harm and little if any good to that country he once ruled

Continued

For the locals the effect was much worse. With the planter & the income he generated, very soon the power house would stop working from breakdown or just lack of fuel. So no lighting, no power tools, no 2 way radio, & no water pumps.

The same thing quickly happened to the tractors & other vehicles. No slashing meant the coconuts were hard to find in the thickening undergrowth, but worse the light aircraft airstrip soon disappeared under regrowth.

With the reduction in copra for shipment, the copra boats came less often, or not at all. These had supplied the fuel, batteries for radios torches etc, clothing, & bully beef & rice, which had become staples.

No 2 way radio meant medical emergency help could not be summonsed, & there was no where for evacuation aircraft to land.

I don't know about all plantation workers, but I built jetties at 13 isolated plantations, using the plantation work force for much of it. I got to know them pretty well, working closely with them for a month or 2 at a time. In every instance they were not interested in returning to their home villages, much prefer the living standard at the plantation. Most had only signed up to go to a distant plantations, because their village life had been far from pleasant.

Thank you, Hasbeen. Did you think that there was a belief that primitive societies would be idyllic?

a belief that primitive societies would be idyllic?
Fester,
According to the guilt industry that's exactly how it was here.

Indonesia, what is its population, how big is it [land area] compared to Australia
Should we try to match its population numbers here
Would our lifestyle drop, would theirs improve with less people
Population had historic times that saw growth start
The industrial revolution saw many leave the farms to work in factory's coal mines and much more
Children worked,just to eat
Explain to me how would we feed for ever and ever growing population, what are the advantages of more people
Some parts [soon to be all] of the world are over populated and we will one day, try to stop that growth

Dear Belly,

I think the answer you are looking for is cannibalism.

Did you see the movie The Road? Pretty scary.

Belly,

Can you contemplate the possibility that, in relation to Indonesia's population and size, you have it arse-about ? That Java has a huge population because it is extremely fertile and, with its tropical climate, it can have two and three crops each year ? That population follows productivity ?

No, of course you can't. Do you think that Indonesians, being less bright than you by far, mindlessly live and work in Java because they haven't the sense to go somewhere else, like Kalimantan, where there is more land ? That they need advice from geniuses like you ?

And that isn't racism ?

Joe

So I am a racist and a bigot
In good company with that brave young girl who told that UN meeting what she thought
Never the less not one word not only from me but most [well Mr O] ABOUT KILLING THOSE DEEMED TO BE OVER POPULATION
In fact no thought even exists other than a FAIR DISTRIBUTION world wide, equality every one by the same rules
For a birth control system that would take 50 or 100 years to bring the population down to?
A not yet known number

Hey Belly,

According to internet world stats the total world population
has risen by 25.6% from 2000 to 2019, and the total world population growth predicted
by 2050 is - 9,374,484.225. One quarter of the world's
mammal species are threatened with extinction.
Temperatures will increase by 1.4C to 5.8C over the next
100 years. Today we desperately need to seek solutions to
climate change, water scarcity, pollution, over population,
and Third World poverty if true sustainability is to be
achieved.

Or we can do nothing - 'çause we won't be around.
I mean why panic - right?

Where there's smoke, there's jobs. So who cares.

One quarter of the world's mammal species are threatened with extinction ,
Foxy,
With some luck that'll be the useless human drug abusers.

IF my detractors have the time lets look at the rise in population after the industrial revolution took place
Then consider the requested constant growth we are told keeps us fed and housed and our economy running
OK so far? we know if we can add up, the increase in population is far far faster now, than the first 50 years after the industrial revolution
We even know it is going, without change, be far faster in the next 50 years
Who would have thought?
Those mathematics could lead to a charge of racism?
Parts of the world are over populated
Soon, far too soon, it all will be
Any one care to forecast what this country,s largest population will be, even can be?
Constant growth is a lemming march to our very own cliff edge

Dear Foxy,

Absolutely right - as usual. You are the gilded light of knowledge on OLO's The Forum. We need more of you and less of the others - nudge nudge wink wink know who I mean.

What some commentators are now asking is whether or not the idea of sustainability per se is actually sustainable. From my research on the environmental sociology of water I'm thinking the answer to date is a definite NO.

World population growth is slowing, as it goes through the Demographic Transition:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Fertility around the world is declining as women's rights improve and they have access to the birth control methods that they have desired for decades. Women's education is improving, so women marry later and have fewer children. Agricultural technologies are improving, so more can be grown with less labour, particularly women's. World populations are maintained more by longer life expectancy and less by the number of births. Europe's populations are stable or declining. India is approaching its population maximum, and China may already have reached that point, before their populations keep ageing longer, and eventually start to decline:

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

But stick to your prejudices and bigotry if you prefer.

Joe

Take the S off loudmouth then your link will work
This bigot will not bother reading it however
Time changes most things and will take this debate to new levels and make it number one for most of us world wide
In time we will learn growth is only making it worse and a better life for every one, comes from controlling population

Thank you, Belly:

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

http://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

Joe

World population growth is an outcome of two factors: increasing births and decreasing rates of mortality: lower rates of mortality mean more people live longer, or in other words, the number of people dying slows down. We're getting close to 'peak child', but we've got a long way to go before we reach 'peak old'.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/mortality/World-Mortality-2017-Data-Booklet.pdf

But remember that French woman who lived to be 120 ? She died around thirty years ago. Nobody else has reached 120. So that may be about the limit of ageing. So, sooner or later, and maybe at a lot less than 120, we will reach 'peak old' for the general population, which may fix, more or less, well below 100. If birth numbers have declined by then, as is likely, then the world's population will gradually decline.

Probably from now on, population growth will be less a matter of births than of increasing life expectancy, since we've almost reached 'peak child'. Japanese women already have a life expectancy of around 86 (partly because infant mortality in Japan is so low, medical services are so efficient and comparatively few people die from accidents or diseases before they reach 86). If a Japanese woman reaches 86, she still has maybe ten more years on average. If she reaches 96, she'll probably reach 100.

Yes, we're a long way from that around the world but it's coming: population 'growth' because of fewer deaths, and longer life expectancy - until the general limits of life expectancy are reached. Then the population will start to slowly decline.

'Over-population' is a bit of a myth: countries have enough slack to increase food production, improve food production technology. African countries have enormous potential in this sense. As for some stipulation that countries are defined as 'over-populated' if they can't produce all their own food - there goes most of Europe. After all, many countries, including Australia, produce far more food than they usually consume, and export the rest. That's standard comparative advantage, according to Adam Smith: you produce and export what you can produce best in exchange.

Sleep soundly.

Joe

Read all three links, one struck me, that 7 point something billion
Have been thinking we passed 8 got that wrong
Not able to change my opinion, will say that never existed mother nature may have a say
It seems to be a natural thing that intrudes on every thing maybe its in our DNA
Swine flue, tell us it has wiped out 25 percent of pigs?
If it or some thing like it[Swine Fever can not harm humans]we could see very real drop
But surely we could lift the standard of living for billions if we controlled population

The philosopher John Rawls implies
when considering the world's worst off, there by
the grace of God or, if a non-believer,
by chance, go we.

We could be the lucky children who have never been
at school but find ourselves working in a Third World
sweat-shop, six days a week, sending most of our wages
back to our parents and our eight siblings who live in
rural poverty, while we live in a slum. breathe particulate-
dense air, and are continually on guard against the
crippling diseases that lurk within our drinking water.

We are lucky ones because at least we'll have life-
sustaining meagre rations and a neighbourhood health-clinic
when the inevitable sickness occurs. Those back in the
distant village will scratch and scrape for food and rely
on witchcraft when illness arrives.

Notwithstanding all the great science, with all those great
inventions mentioned in earlier posts, only a minority of our
fellow humans are benefiting. Yet we have to be optimistic.

If we, the middle class, can have the life-saving and life-
rewarding tools of modernity, so can everyone. As long as there
are not too many of us. This is a fundamental caveat. The planet
we have come to inhabit is very small.

The experts who measure human demands on the planet suggest -
if by some miracle of economics - everyone living today
was top have a middle-class lifestyle, we would need
immediately two or three more planet earths.

Humans as stated earlier, do have the intelligence, the
tools and the natural resources to provide for a good,
sustainable life as long as there are not so many humans
that we exceed the globe's carrying capacity.

All the evidence suggests that we must
turn around population growth and aim
for a much smaller population than we have
today.

Earth is our home and we must find a way to live on it
sustainably. It seems clear that we must
scale back our consumption, in particular
a transition to a lower carbon
lifestyle.

The world has enough for everyone's need - but not enough
for everyone's greed.

'The world has enough for everyone's need - but not enough
for everyone's greed.'

We can certainly agree with that Foxy. That is why socialism always leads to poverty for the masses.

Dear Foxy,

The sustainable carrying capacity of the planet for its human population is 5.6 billion and this was reached in 1985.

The capitalism of the modern industrial error is part of the problem and socialism is the only chance most of the world's population is going to have of getting an equitable share of the world's resources. Those who don't want to see socialism introduced to manage the environment upon which we all depend for our sustenance and lifestyles are driven to do so by greed.

Dear Runner,

'The world has enough for everyone's need - but not enough for everyone's greed.'

Greed is not necessarily bad. It is bad when one is greedy for the temporal, but not when one is thirsty for God.

I am disappointed to see that practically everyone here is talking about the shortage or otherwise of temporal resources. I personally think that temporal resources can be stretched even further, if that is what would give us true happiness - but of course it won't!

What we ought to be concerned about instead, is that survival under overpopulation requires more and more control, regimentation and the stifling of unique individual expressions, including religious expression. We already see this in China and it looks like religion is becoming for most of us a luxury that is increasingly difficult to afford.

For example, food and medicine will still be there for the foreseeable future, but if your religion restricts your diet or calls for alternative medicine/healing, this doesn't fit well with mass-production and so becomes increasingly expensive and unaffordable, if not outright prohibited. Drinking water will still be there, but if you want to avoid drinking fluoride with your water (and worse things in the future, such as compulsory health-monitoring micro-robots), you now need to be rich.

One aspect of regimentation is the proliferation of digital devices and temptations - this allows big-business and government to streamline an ever larger society, but the cost is slavery to those gadgets, including their acquisition, study and protection, and so people find it much harder to find time for church or any other spiritual activity. Actually, try even to find a space for a church when all space is taken and everyone is forced to live in hive-like flats and when robots automatically report to the authorities when "too many" people convene in one.

If you want to fit more sardines in a box, you must align them with all the heads in one direction, the tails in the opposite, you cannot allow them to lie sidewards or diagonally!

If you want to fit more sardines in a box
Yuyutsu,
I don't think God ever intended for us to exist like Sardines. He supposedly gave us a brain but sadly, we're letting him down at every turn.
Those against birth control should be made to live in over-populated places until they they come to their senses. The greedy should be made to live with other greedy until they come to their senses.
Until people come to accept that unity, aided by responsibility & respect is the key to success,
things will continue to get worse. Just because some morons can't see that things are getting worse must not let the rest lose focus. We need to get away from the "Growth" mentality.
The only thing that can solve the whole show is reducing the top earning salaries to the actual worth level. That'd be a sustainable envionmentally economy that'd guarantee a decent future.
We must stamp out stupidity, particularly among the educated who always pull the wrong strings !

May I ? God, what one? the world worships about two thousand
Some say the number is nearer four thousand
Every one made us all,even front page this days SMH showing a Muslim your FORCING a Jewish kid, to kiss his boots, on the way to school
Now is that God? we can all claim our God is the only one, but what of the others?
God, belief, breeds hate
This world can not ask mother nature or indeed God, all of them or just some, to do our work for us
We must get our act together and see over population is an illness
Waiting for God to fix it is sloth like and the wait will be forever

a Muslim your FORCING a Jewish kid
Belly,
WHAT ?

on the way to School a Muslim thing, forced a Jewish kid, to kiss his boots
IF it had been the other way around my rage would be the same
My point?
Leave God, every one of them, in the fantasy section and take responsibility for our own actions
Photo of the act SMH this day

Dear Belly,

«May I ? God, what one? the world worships about two thousand»

What the world worships are representative FORMS of God, the one and only.

The different forms may not be real, but they inspire people to worship God through them, and that's what counts. They also inspire people to better themselves morally in thought, word and deed, initially out of fear, but then of out awe, love and eventually because they can actually see God beyond the mask of their chosen form.

«This world can not ask mother nature or indeed God, all of them or just some, to do our work for us»

Very wise statement, thank you!

The problem is, how do we know what our work is? how do we know that we do not imagine duties that we do not really have, or forget about duties that we do?

For this, we need to gradually develop the right intention, but without faith in God (in one form or another), it is very difficult.

In the context of this thread, for example, people imagine that they have a "duty" to procreate, failing to notice that this is not a duty, but a primitive genetic urge.

«We must get our act together and see over population is an illness
Waiting for God to fix it is sloth like and the wait will be forever»

Very wise again!

It is best to think of God while performing one's duties, but if one cannot, then still one should perform one's duties anyway without sloth.

Yuyutsu, remember I once WORSHIPED CHRIST
The end came for me after watching a well known woman climb on a stage, leave her walking frame behind, after a cure
For an illness she never had [her son in law was the healer
Latter, a few weeks that congregation kept a seven year old *with a broken arm* for near a week praying for a healing
Long gone that Preacher rose to form one of this country,first TV Churches
He fell, on moral grounds
Back then nothing could convince me the Church, every one every faith would host pedophilia
Sad but true we now know they did
Still true believers in any faith, will be the first to help- first to care and there for even people like me [not the JWs] visited yesterday after ten requests they never do it.

'What we ought to be concerned about instead, is that survival under overpopulation requires more and more control, regimentation and the stifling of unique individual expressions, including religious expression. We already see this in China and it looks like religion is becoming for most of us a luxury that is increasingly difficult to afford.'

Hi Yuyutsu

Ultimately the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will renew or restore all things. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess to the glory of the Father that Jesus Christ is Lord. We probably live in a time when selfishness has never been as prevelant. Sin is rampart as many men have the arrogrance to think they know better than God and spurn His mercy offered through Jesus Christ. The 'over population' myth is just one of the many lies that the godless UN use to manipulate and control people.

Dear Belly,

If you worship Christ, then you do so for yourself, not for any organisation, you do so for your highest good because the image, story and personality of Jesus Christ inspires you to love God and be good. Now you are telling me that Christ no longer appeals to you - this is sad but it is not Christ's fault, it is only due to some behaviours by people who were speaking in his name.

Still, if you cannot differentiate between Jesus Christ and bad people who spoke in his name and so Christ no longer does it for you, if you are no longer able to feel this glowing loving bond with him, then you can look for some other image or god that appeals to you and inspires you, through which you can communicate with God. Just two warnings: you must remember that this is only an image, only a 'god' with a small-g; and you should not change gods too often just because you feel upset. It does not matter what image you choose or whether anyone else also uses it, so long as you are sincere: if you are, then your prayers and devotion will lead you towards God regardless.

---

Dear Runner,

«The 'over population' myth is just one of the many lies that the godless UN use to manipulate and control people.»

Well the UN has its own ungodly agenda, we know that, but they only speak of material resource shortages and what I was explaining is how this is not the real problem with overpopulation, at least not the biggest issue.

«We probably live in a time when selfishness has never been as prevelant.»

Actually, history and scripture speaks of times when selfishness was even worse, but it was then concentrated in only a few leaders, kings and princes, whereas today, you say, it is more widespread than ever among the general population: an interesting point to research!

'Actually, history and scripture speaks of times when selfishness was even worse, but it was then concentrated in only a few leaders, kings and princes, whereas today, you say, it is more widespread than ever among the general population: an interesting point to research!'

true Yuyutsu but I know of no time where so many indulge shamelessly in sin and then virtue signal their religion such as gw to others. You would also find it hard to have research done today without a narrative. Many academics can't even see a baby born with a penis is male.

I Yuyutsu no longer believe, but know about the Spanish inquisition
See the pedophilia, know of the crimes of Irish Catholic Preasts
Have seen so much evil , and too good, come from the Church it horrifies me

The one thing that gets to me is, why does God allow so much man-made misery ? Why does he tolerate humans to be so bad ? If he created humans then why did he create so many stupid ones ? What could possibly be a justification for nasty (stupid) people ?

Good question indy my once God was a God of love and forgiveness
His people the Jews suffered 6 million murdered and suffer with rising hate against them to day
If runner is right humanity must be about to stop hating Muslims and Jews
In fact God would have got that done had he ever existed

Dear Belly,

It is both sad and hard to believe - that the Spanish Inquisition, already gone (for most purposes) for 500 years or so, still has such power over you to deprive you of spiritual health, of the only source of lasting happiness and peace, indeed the source of sanity itself.

Same for all those paedophile priests, Catholic or otherwise, Irish or otherwise: idiots they are, that's for sure, but why do you, Belly, need to suffer alongside for their crimes?!

Know that these sinful people never owned God.
They never even knew God.
Why then would you hold them as any spiritual authority?

The good news is, that in order to love God and receive His grace, there is no need to believe that He exists. Beliefs are only cerebral, intellectual ideas and God does not ask you to entertain this or that intellectual idea - the church might expect you so, but not God! Just fill your heart with love and the spirit of service, for God and for your fellow creatures and may God grant you everlasting joy and peace.

---

Dear Individual,

How popular is a movie without a villain, where nothing bad really happens?

It is you who chose this movie and it is you who can, if you want, quit it at any moment: turn on the light and you will laugh your belly off over the fact that "and I was counting myself as one of those miserable human figures on that screen, ha ha ha, as if it was really me who was suffering like those dummies, how ridiculous could I be while I was actually sitting on this chair all along for eternity watching this screen..."

Wake up! This world is only a dream, only a nightmare. You, the dreamer, are not anywhere in it, never were - it is your own creation alone!

Yuyutsu,
Well, great beating around the bush wish with nothing actually said. So, why do you think does God tolerate stupid & nasty people ?

Yuyutsu! hang on you are smarter than that
HISTORY should never be ignored and YOU know Muslims [some] still hate over middle ages invasions of their country
My brain led me away from God fables
My hope for a united world, even if we must, yet again, invent a God
Make it one who promises reincarnation, BUT warns us, if we do any harm to any other race we will be reborn in that race ten times before moving to another
Use the God myth to unite humanity

Belly,
brilliantly said !

Thanks indy hope Yuyutsu answers his views are always interesting

Belly,

On thursday, you wrote:

"But surely we could lift the standard of living for billions if we controlled population"

'WE' ? We have some right to intrude into other countries' affairs ? To 'control' their populations ? Really ? Can you see the fascist side of that 'virtuous goal' ?

And how to 'control' population ? Sterilise women ? Butcher children ? 'Subtract' the elderly ?

And of course, 'we' could only do that once 'we' have invaded and imposed our superiority on those benighted countries. Or perhaps it could be done by some world government, in your dystopian view ?

So how different would that be from fascism ? Not to mention racism ? And where are we talking about ? Bangla Desh ? India ? Africa ?

Joe

Dear Belly,

«Thanks indy hope Yuyutsu answers his views are always interesting»

The question as presented, was: "why do you think does God tolerate stupid & nasty people?". This is a version of the big and famous "question of evil", which was probably discussed all over the world more than any other.

Christianity answers this in chapters 38-41 of the book of Job.

Judaism answers: "in order to allow them to learn and repent".

Both are true in their own way and Hinduism too has the answers, not one but several, on different levels, to suit the depth of understanding of the asker, thus this puts me in a dilemma because the answers I give you would be different to the answers I give Individual. So here are seven answers on seven different levels, yet all true:

Answer 1:

I do not think so (that God tolerates stupid and nasty people).

Answer 2:

So do mothers, when it comes to their children!

Answer 3:

There is actually no such thing as darkness: darkness is only the absence of light.
So instead of trying to fight darkness, bring in a light and where there is only a little light, bring in a bigger light, then bigger still.
Stupidity is just a stage of development, the light of consciousness is there but is not yet strong enough, so rather than countering stupidity, bring in more consciousness and more wisdom.

Answer 4:

God is not a person. Tolerance or intolerance can only be attributed to persons.

Answer 5:

While there is stupidity and nastiness, one can only be exposed to them if they were themselves stupid and nasty in this or previous lifetimes. Otherwise there is nothing for you to fear.

Answer 6:

A measure of darkness and suffering is a necessary quality of this world.
Otherwise there would be no incentive to advance, graduate and leave this world, then we would be dreaming an endless boring dream with no hope and no purpose.

Answer 7:

You too are God, so ask yourself!

You too are God, so ask yourself!
Yuyutsu,
if I were God none of that crap would happen, that much I'd guarantee !

Yuyutsu,

I would have thought that the natural condition of the universe is darkness, that light is the temporary absence of darkness.

And maybe, instead of each of us being a god, that there aren't any at all. That the natural condition of the universe is to be godless, but that some of us have to invent a god (or gods) to fill up the space of our ignorance and fears.

Hello, Runner, didn't see you there :)

Joe

Come on Loudmouth

you have shown yourself to be one of the reasoned characters over the years on olo. Your denial of a Creator is not only irrational but also dishonest.

Interesting and I know yuyutsu is far more interested than me in the God myth
But too he wants better for us all
It will be along wait
Yes bad people exist, far too many but they think they are ok
A link posted in the Trump thread told of a bloke who had signs all over his business warning who he thought he did not want to leave his business
Or be shot
No doubt we know why that business is failing to thrive
My God was going to reward me with eternal life, apparently on my knees in constant worship
My God I want to invent will dance with us and take his turn at cooking the snags on the Sunday bar b q

Hi Runner,

Rationality has nothing to do with belief in a supreme being (or a multitude of them). I thought that was the point, that the 'wonder' of such a being was its drawcard.

If there were such an all-powerful being, who has existed from everlasting to everlasting, then he/she certainly would have unbelievably special powers from the beginning. So why worship him/her ? He/she has what came naturally, like a devastatingly handsome bloke (such as myself) - one does not praise him for his looks, they're simply what he was born with. I certainly don't get such praise, not to my face anyway, and fair enough.

So a rational believer would simply shrug and say, okay, you're god, you've got powers and always had them, so what do you want me to grovel for ? Because you have the power, not only to give me eternal life for constantly praising you, but also the power to deny that debatable pleasure ?

Frankly, I think such a god would be a bit of a psychopath if he/she existed, a spoilt brat craving praise. A bit like Trump actually, come to think of it. I might be in trouble if ever I got into heaven, plinketty-plunking away on a bloody harp forever. Sounds more like hell to me, without the global warming. I'd be more tempted to have a go at the Muslim version with its 72 virgins, that sounds pretty good to me. 72 virgins, every day, forever. Better than X-Lotto.

Joe

Although 'day' would have no meaning: in heaven, there would be no need of moon or stars by night, or sun to shine by day. So maybe 'day' mean eternity. 72 virgins, and no more, for all of eternity. Ration it out, fellas.

Dear Individual,

«if I were God none of that crap would happen, that much I'd guarantee !»

I earlier made the bad mistake of answering your question over your head, way above your level of understanding.

Your current idea of God is derived from Western folklore rather than from serious study, thus my attempt to provide answers to your question failed because it was improperly superimposed over your particular idea of God.

It is as if a kindergarten class asked me about the moon and I was responding by writing differential equations on the blackboard to explain its motion.

I should have known better, I confused you and I apologise for this.

It is best for you to stay with the first answer that I gave Belly: No, I do not think that God tolerates stupid and nasty people.

If what helps you in accepting this answer is to believe that God does not exist, then so be it. That creation of Western folklore which some Westerners call "God", indeed does not exist.

---

Dear Joe,

«I would have thought that the natural condition of the universe is darkness, that light is the temporary absence of darkness.»

Had that been the case, then the presence of a bit of darkness would dispel the light.

«And maybe, instead of each of us being a god, that there aren't any at all.»

It seems that I confused you also: we are not gods. Indeed we are God (although understanding this requires more study), but God is not a god.

I am not saying that there are no gods at all, but I do not wish to confuse you even further about it. Suffice that I was only discussing God (with a CAPITAL-G), then we could leave the question of the existence or otherwise of gods for another day.

I do appreciate your last post (Sunday, 6 October 2019 3:48:11 PM).

Dear Belly,

«My God was going to reward me with eternal life, apparently on my knees in constant worship»

There is no need to reward you with what you already have - you ARE eternal, anyway!

Worship is often described as even more rewarding and joyous than eternal life - what a glorious way to spend one's time, a prize, not a payment!

(but you will be rewarded with a new set of celestial knees that never wear out, never give you any pain...)

«My God I want to invent will dance with us and take his turn at cooking the snags on the Sunday bar b q»

Then you may be inspired by Shiva, who is also the Lord of dancers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poT6NfxH93k

and/or by goddess Annapurna, an incarnation of Shiva's wife which likes to cook for everyone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapurna_(goddess)

Yuyutsu my God may be interested in fixing the poor homeless and hungry it appears few of the many do
Maybe as we his/her children are failures he/she should do these things for us
Rather think my stay in heaven would not be long see I fear a life in servitude of some one who demands to be worshiped

your question over your head, way above your level of understanding.
Yuyutsu,
You're right, being superstitious & hiding behind whichever Religion is above my understanding.
Anyhow, Gods are being portrayed as beings/powers that need constant praise. Why ? God(s) created us with all our faults & then we're expected to toe the line ? I think the religious are either very hypocritical or very silly. On the other hand we have Bible/Quoran/etc but do we live accordingly ? No ! Not even the religious adhere to the scriptures recommendations. Is it just possible that the whole show is just one massive hoax to control people ? The animal kingdom does not appear to have religions & perhaps that is why they function so much better than us !
By all means have Faith in what makes you feel better but for crying out loud, stop being religious i.e. hypocritical.

But, of course, if 'day' meant eternity, and once an Islamist has re-assembled all his body parts, at least the essentials, then eternity means 'day': he will live together with his 72 virgins for one 'day', i.e. for eternity. He will always be surrounded by his 72 virgins.

And all he has to do is blow up a church, or a pre-school, or an old people's home, or a school bus, like a real hero. Strange god, which encourages those sort of atrocities, and rewards someone for it. Is such a god pure evil ?

Not possible, surely. But I'll stay atheist, just in case: I'll take the anti-Pascal option. Either way, no heaven for me :) Or hell, either, come to think of it.

Anyway, back to topic: when the Demographic Transition occurs in Africa, it will occur very quickly, with child mortality dropping to world levels, quickly followed by fertility rates, and accompanied by vastly better educational (and life) opportunities for African girls and women. Soon enough, countries will be affluent enough to afford old age pensions, putting further downward pressure on fertility rates, so that populations will 'increase' mainly because of the greater life expectancies across the continent, not because of increasing birth survivors.

Joe

72 Virgins, will mum pick them all, any chance they will be cousins
Doubt any man could handle 72 but willing to try say three

Well, Belly, you've got all eternity :) 72 virgins, all in separate houses - imagine the welfare cheques they could pull in.

I was wondering about world food production per head since the fifties and found this:

http://www.google.ca/search?q=food+production+1950-2019&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=lsKuA9EiuPhQGM%253A%252CRUdgt8l3jnxj-M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTMYzh_SpRTInSXKpppN9SCt7GBXQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2prWwsInlAhUyguYKHb-LCocQ9QEwAHoECAkQBg#imgdii=4SLDeCiBQtZJDM:&imgrc=xNSLjum982JUhM:&vet=1

50 % rise per person since 1950: it probably means that there are still kids in developing regions who don't get enough food. But clearly, there would be less starvation now than back then. Having had to hang around a local shopping mall while my car was being serviced last week, I noticed many people, particularly young women, who certainly weren't starving, some with arses almost a metre across. And others who were indeed scrawny, whose every spare dollar had to go on essentials like dope. Well, it's my sort of neighbourhood. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Would global warming mean more, or less, food production ? Would one or two degrees rise in temperature across northern Asia and Europe and Canada open up vast regions to production ? Would such temperature rises hinder production in tropical areas in any way ? India is almost self-sufficient in food production, while the UK, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway and many other countries are nowhere near it, nor do they have to be since they exchange manufacturing products for food from other countries - standard comparative advantage.

Joe

Dear Belly,

«Rather think my stay in heaven would not be long see I fear a life in servitude of some one who demands to be worshiped»

Heaven is just a realm for fools who waste their time and efforts being rewarded with pleasures for their virtuous actions. Once their hard-won merits are exhausted, they are forced to leave and return to earth. It is therefore wise on your behalf to shun heaven, but not for the reason you stated:

There is no worship in heaven!

There is a story of King Khatvanga who went to heaven to help the gods (small-g, not God!) in their war. In return, once the war was won, he requested them to tell him how long he still had to live. Normally the gods are not supposed to tell that to humans, but they were obliged, so they answered: "only one moment (48 minutes)". Knowing that time is so short and that worship is not possible in heaven, he rushed back to earth to worship, there Khatvanga worshipped God with all his heart and indeed attained Him.

Worship is not a demand, not a burden, but rather a joyous privilege.

The psalmist prayed:

"One thing I ask from the Lord, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the Lord and to seek him in his temple" [Psalms 27:4]

We already have so many obligations and pressures in life, from cradle to grave, from going to school to remembering our grandchildrens' birthdays, from caring for our children and elderly parents to following the doctor's orders. Our genes prod us to procreate, our stomach to eat, our ageing body demands that we relieve its pains and our ego prods us to gain recognition and fame.

The above are demands, many of which cannot (and should not) be avoided, but worship OTOH is our prize and respite when we are fortunate to have free time and energy left. Don't do it for God, do it for yourself!

Worship is not a demand, not a burden, but rather a joyous privilege.
Yuyutsu,
The ATO is trying to say the same about paying taxes !

Dear Individual,

«Gods are being portrayed as beings/powers that need constant praise. Why ? God(s) created us with all our faults & then we're expected to toe the line ?»

Are you asking because you indeed want to hear my answers and learn from them?

I feel that Belly does, so I try to answer his questions as best I can, otherwise my time is too precious to be wasted on answering questions where no one is interested in my answers.

Yuyustu Heaven is right here, living in us, our bad back our pain and our happiness
IF any life after death exists I may want to spend it back here hurt pain joy just as we do now
As yet another war may be about to see Turkey [lead by another mad dictator] invade Syria to kill Kurds, we have work to do here before entering any place of reward

Dear Belly,

Never mind about heaven, wherever it is - it is not worthwhile, it is only trouble. There there are only pleasures whereas here on earth we have mixed suffering and pleasure, but none of it is everlasting. One day there will no longer be Turkey, or Syria, or Kurds, or this planet or indeed humanity, they are all temporary, even heaven is - the only reality is God, He never changes, never affected by time, take refuge in Him!

But you say that you rather stay here on earth, at least for now - that's OK, then stay and do good works here, but know that suffering is part of parcel of this place and always will be, nobody can ever make this place a heaven, it is futile to try so, if you understand this, at least you will not be disappointed.

Under stand Yuyutsu, but if greed did not control this world we could do better
Shame is it does control and about one percent own most of every thing

Are you asking because you indeed want to hear my answers and learn from them?
Yuyutsu,
I'm open to any plausible answer.

spend less on dams for farmers than we will helping America go back in space
Belly,
I think you should put that question to those Environmentalists who stop the construction of dams.

Dear Individual,

«I'm open to any plausible answer.»

I hope so.

«Gods are being portrayed as beings/powers that need constant praise. Why ?»

I do not portray God as such, so you may like to ask those who do why they do.

God does not need any praise. He is already complete and infinite with or without your petty finite praise. Instead, it is your privilege to praise God if you so choose, for your own benefit, for the sake of purifying your mind and heart: if you choose not to, then you missed a great opportunity and the loss is all yours.

«God(s) created us with all our faults»

The appearance as if you were created (whether by God or by anyone else) and are temporal and faulty, is all in the mind - you are uncreated, eternal and faultless.

It is true that your body and mind were created (in the case of your body, by your parents) and that they are less than perfect, but as you are neither your body nor your mind, this perception is a case of mistaken identity.

« & then we're expected to toe the line?»

Now there are in fact not one, but many such "lines" that different people expect you to toe - so what? that's only their own weaknesses and insecurities, God does not expect anything from you. The interesting question is, what do you expect of yourself?

«I think the religious are either very hypocritical or very silly.»

"Hypocritical" implies that they are not truly religious, just pretenders. So we have certain people who call themselves "religious", but actually are not. What does this tell us about religion and religiosity? Nothing!

indy show me those conservationists, not aware of any, unless you are talking about the Franklin dam
It was never about water for the farmers but power supply old mate
You have seen in other threads my view we must build dams a whole lot of them
And pump water both retrieved river water and recycled sewage inland filling each dam using them as stepping stones to get permanent water inland
We then could increase population/carrying capacity of inland Australia

By me, there are more important things than this, but people don't want to help each other but prefer to envy others and criticize them. That's why it is easier to control you.

Hi Belly,

Please have a look at this chart:

http://ourworldindata.org/grapher/projected-population-by-age-cohort

Notice that between now and 2100, the population of young people and children stays flat (and even declines very slightly); but that the population of older people, especially those over 65, old farts like you and me, rockets up - this is not because anybody is born already old, but because people who are already here, simply keep living - they live longer. On average, we all will.

Does that make sense ?

Cheers,

Joe

Shawn Dmi good day to you, do you think liking and respecting each other is easy to achieve
Fact is right now we have never been more fragmented and that is a truth, some give more concern to the bottle of water in their hand and phone in the other than anything else
Loudmouth looked at it but
See we think differently, you seem to think she will be right mate
While I think it will not be,actually think in my case if we do not control population stall all growth?
Wars may be used to do it
Too that population growth is about to become one of the worlds biggest concerns

Blly,

So, you mean, how do we control population growth which is caused by people living longer ? How can we (once we have world government) ensure that people don't live longer ? Which groups should we be thinking of culling ? Should there be a sort of life-limit - say, 75 ? What other fascist remedies can we implement, once we have total control of the world's populations ?

Joe

Belly,

Please have a good look at this:

http://firstsourcesinfo.ipage.com/stats/

i.e. the size of young; working-age; and elderly populations up to the year 2100.

Notice that the young population, i.e. under 15, doesn't really grow in numbers between now and 2100 - in fact, it slightly declines.

The elderly population grows three-and-a-half times - that's us.

The largest component, the working-age population, also grows healthily, but only by a quarter or so in the next eighty years - that's the population which is needed to support the other two non-working populations. Notice it levels off later in this century, while the elderly population keeps growing. That elderly population has to level off some time as well, since 100 or 120 is probably our natural limit (may you live to be 120, Belly !)

Of course, as technologies improve, there will be less need for as many people in the working population, i.e. it will keep pace with the growth in the non-working populations.

As well, very likely, throughout this century, pension-age will be pushed up, which is understandable since there will be far fewer people having to do manual work throughout their working lives. So perhaps more of the total population will still be working (i.e. in non-manual jobs) than this graph shows.

Fear not, old mate !

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth yes true living longer increases the population
And some times birth control can have impacts we must see
The Sub Continent, and China under the one child policy, saw hundreds of thousands, millions probably, of women children aborted or killed after birth
See last weeks India story [man burying his dead child dug up a living girl]
We are about to see the social impacts of not enough brides explode
How could we ever, control population without addressing that?
We stand on different ground here but I remain convinced constant population growth is not sustainable

Belly,

Oh gawd !

I just noticed that somehow I put the wrong http up, it should have been:

http://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dependency-age-groups-to-2100

Belly, please notice that the numbers in younger populations is set to drop, and is already close to doing that. The numbers in older age-groups will increase massively by 2100, mainly because people will be living longer, i.e. not dying until later than they would have, say, fifty or a hundred years ago - so they're still 'on the books'.

We're reaching world birth-numbers stability, and those numbers will soon start to slowly decline. There isn't a population crisis because of births, but because (if there IS a crisis) of longer lives. So the problem isn't necessarily how to cut births - family planning is, to me, more of a women's rights and opportunities issue than a population issue - but (if there IS a problem) one to do with coping with big numbers of much older people.

Of course, there is probably a limit to how long people can live even in the best of circumstances - say 120 - but once that huge population of older people start reaching 120, or whatever, then the world population will actually start to decline.

World population growth is not really much of an issue now, if it ever was.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

One could have claimed that the problem is caused by old-age if the problem was new.

However, the world already became overpopulated around the year 0 when the number of humans exceeded 200,000,000. Sure many more bodies can be fed and housed, but for an adequate and decent lifestyle that supports spiritual growth and does not diminish the purpose, autonomy and value of human life, world population should be kept at around 100-200 millions.

Yuyutsu/Joe
Parts of the world are over populated
Any chance that is true for say China right now
How about India? 30.000 British pounds, stunning amount paid to filth people smugglers
To be let die in a frozen goods van
Some are searching for a better life right now, and the cost is horrific

Belly,

Most of Europe and Singapore and Hong Kong and Japan are much more populated (per square kilometre) than China.

It depends on the level of productive technology (god, I'm still a Marxist !): ancient Britain would have been massively over-populated if it had had a population of, say, one million. With modern technology, it can easily carry sixty million: would you suggest that Britain is over-populated ? Is Singapore over-populated ? Or Hong Kong ? No, because they generate enormous economic activity in services and are amongst the states with the wealthiest per head population in the world - in fact, they attract rather than export migrants.

China's population growth only has another decade or so, before it slowly declines: the result, partly, of the one-child policy and partly, of higher education, pensions, more advanced forms of technology and higher life expectations. India will similarly follow after another couple of decades (and more quickly) regardless of any government policies. When Africa gets its act together, its transition will be even quicker. That's how it works.

Yuyutsu, so who would you propose should be killed off, to fit the world's population of eight billion into your 200-million Dystopia ?

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth you hit on a truth, and some thing I truly fear
Who will die and by what method
Wars they say are fought to keep the population under control
And right now I would not trust any country any leader not to think another one may be a good idea
In fact I loath it, but think any control will be enforced on us and inflicted on some, by horrible government

Dear Joe,

«Yuyutsu, so who would you propose should be killed off»

Nobody, not involuntarily anyway, that would amount to murder.

Obviously it is not easy and unrealistic to solve in one day a problem that festered for 2000 years, so it will take the time to correct, about a century or so.

Just close the gates using education, complete cessation of child-support and free education, etc. and de-sexing those who are still interested in such activities that might produce new human bodies.

Well here goes, my effort to see the population stops growing
Reward, pay those who have only the required number of kids, do not pay those who have more
No easy task, for instance what if kids, in huge numbers, are boys?
We have just started to see the very true shortage of wives in some countrys
No easy task but constant forever growth in population is a huge problem down the track

Dear Belly,

«pay those who have only the required number of kids»

Which is 0!

But if the need for more kids is specific to Australia, then there are about a billion of impoverished and malnourished kids around the globe: adopting some of them would not require polluting the world with more humans.

Yuyutsu the thread was mine, it proposes the world [in some parts] is already over populated
It asks are we going to set a limit, or just convince our selves never ending growth is possible
Too put a case, the world population, before much time passes, will be seen as every bit as important as climate change

Dear Belly,

Thank you for this thread.

Overpopulation is our biggest problem, throughout the world, not only in parts of it. No other problem can be effectively addressed without first looking at the monster in the room.

Are we going to set a limit? But that limit was exceeded long ago. We should re-establish that limit at 200 million people and have no new babies until human population is back within this limit.

Well thank you Yuyutsu
Yes agree while others do not it remains my view fewer people could lead to a better life for every one
Not sure how we do it but we will in time
The tragic deaths, a blimp on the whole issue of world wide migration/refugees, highlights the standard of living in some countrys is not good
Too no doubt in my mind, we will see this problem grow