"Turn off the tap- at least aim for zero population increase in all nations- bring nations back to nineteen eighties levels is a start"

CM, the world population in 1987 was 5 billion, today its 7.8 billion. Pray tell how and where do you propose we meet your objective of reducing the worlds population by 2.8 billion for a "start". Australia will need to reduce its population by 10 million for a "start". Seems India is in your sights for population control. How cooperative would people be in reducing their numbers? If its just birth control at one end, and death at the other, then the population would decline over time, but it would also age significantly. In 20 years time the vast majority of the population would be aged between 20 and 80, no need for schools or kindy's. If the worlds population was reduced to 200 million as suggested then Australia's population would be reduced to 667 people, I kid ye not. There would be no breeding population, and the human race would shortly after go extinct. AND don't think with a population of 667 people we are all going to have 6 supermarkets and 500 cars each to shop in and drive around in, there will be no one of working age to produce anything, let alone to bury the dead. AND this guy would call the GREENS dreamers.

We don't only have an over population problem, we have a much greater resource consumption problem, too many getting too little. If you wanted to even out consumption, then Australia should increase its population to 100 million, and quickly. The vast majority, that's about 75 million new arrivals from that poor 84%, would be initially no worse off than before they arrived, regarding housing, health, education etc. Over time the living standard for the 75m will rise, and drop for the other 25m, eventually it would all even itself out. Isn't that what you want CM?

This is interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

In 1997, the Italian economist Giorgio Nebbia observed that the negative reaction to the LTG study came from at least four sources: those who saw the book as a threat to their business or industry; professional economists, who saw LTG as an uncredentialed encroachment on their professional perquisites; the Catholic church, which bridled at the suggestion that overpopulation was one of mankind's major problems; finally, the political left, which saw the LTG study as a scam by the elites designed to trick workers into believing that a proletarian paradise was a pipe dream.

In 2008 Graham Turner of CSIRO found that the observed historical data from 1970 to 2000 closely match the simulated results of the "standard run" limits of growth model for almost all the outputs reported. "The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time." Turner also examined a number of reports, particularly by economists, which over the years have purported to discredit the limits-to-growth model. Turner says these reports are flawed, and reflect misunderstandings about the model.

Yale economist Henry C. Wallich agreed that growth could not continue indefinitely, but that a natural end to growth was preferable to intervention. Wallich stated that technology could solve all the problems the report was concerned about, but only if growth continued apace. By stopping growth too soon, Wallich warned, the world would be "consigning billions to permanent poverty".

I'm glad that Paul1405 brought up the point about certain nations and individuals consuming at a greater per capita rate- and he thinks that is unfair presumably- Communism talks about equality a lot- but even in Communist countries things aren't equal- in fact they are more unequal than other societies.

Orwellian- talking equality while building massive inequality. Talk and action- what do you believe.

The top dog always eats first. There is always a top dog. But a smaller pack will eat less.

The wise top dog will have greater self discipline to avoid recrimination- will form allegiances- but he still needs to prove he is the top dog- one of the way that he does that is by consumption patterns.

I want more food- he's got more food- I'll do what he wants to get more food. But the human brain has many layers.

Dear Paul,

If the world population decreases evenly from 8 billion to 200 million people, then Australia's population will be closer to 625,000 people, not just 667.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Sorry I read it as 200k not 200m even at that number a huge reduction would be required, how would it be achieved. A zero birth rate would cause massive problems with a rapidly ageing population, leading to human extinction. Prejudice makes a white supremacist say "INDIA", yes lots of hungry people in the world, but there's also lots of obese people as well.

CM, as far as I am aware communism espouses distribution according to need no equality of distribution.

YOU fail to say how YOU believe a massive reduction in World population can be achieved. Nothing more than a rave about communists, Orwellian stuff, I know you have read 'Animal Farm' we all have, and top dogs, but please explain how YOU would achiever massive population reduction the where's, the when's and the how's. Please don't resort to quoting Arsethrottle and Confusion as a deflection.

What really is behind the thinking of these extremists of the right, they will not disclose, its to fringing to contemplate.

Dear Paul,

«even at that number a huge reduction would be required, how would it be achieved. A zero birth rate would cause massive problems with a rapidly ageing population, leading to human extinction.»

We have multiple choices over the speed we get there.
As per any addiction, withdrawal of the addiction to high population numbers is bound to initially be painful.
An ideal cold-turkey approach would maximise long-term happiness, but would also bring much suffering and deaths in the short term, so I don't realistically see it happening, not voluntarily anyway, though war, epidemics and natural disasters might bring us there anyway.

Even if we aim at zero birth, this will never be achieved as there will always be a certain proportion of "accidents" and disobedience.

You are probably aware that I oppose the existence of states and governments, but so long as they do exist, the minimal and most reasonable step is for states to disincentivise procreation financially. This means stopping free/subsidised education, childcare, healthcare, paid parental leave, etc. for everyone born past a given date at 9 months notice. Also providing and encouraging sterilisation, including a preference for sterilised migrants and workers and early release for non-violent prisoners who get sterilised - the clear message should be that procreation is presently an anti-social behaviour!

«Prejudice makes a white supremacist say "INDIA"»

I did not make any such distinctions. We all need to share that task.

«yes lots of hungry people in the world»

With less people so less mouths to feed, non-voluntary hunger will eventually cease as well.

«but there's also lots of obese people as well.»

In the past, eunuchs tended to become fat, but there are modern methods of sterilisation which do not affect our hormonal balance, thus I only suggested the curbing of procreation, not of sex.