Earth's Number One Problem - Important article

 Very smart guy... we have a "game theory" problem.. as long as there are sheep.. wolves do fine...

 No more sheep.. = no more wolves.

 Evolution -> justice -> real progress.

They're sort of an Americian Stonehenge which includes what many claim are 10 'New World Order' Commandments.

Number one on the list is reducing the world's population by 90% from 6.5 billion down to 500 million.

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

I'm wondering if Chris has heard of this?

Now in the light of our predicament the above may seem like a good idea... BUT how quickly do 'they' intend to depopulate the planet, by what means, and who gets to live or perish?... just a small point I would think!

Now just line up and take your swine flu vaccination shots like good children....

Rowmat,

     Interesting post. Never heard of the optimal 500,000,000 number being in stone. I think we'll easily burn down through that number after climate change, peak oil, species extinction, and novel viruses take their toll.

 Thing is.. apart from the tricky 500K thing......... the rest makes sense.......

 and the 500k thing... is the real issue....... how to get there...... fairly...... justly.... humanely........

 and how to  maintain at 500k .... fairly..... justly....... humanely....

 Dowry... ? Dowry = gold.. ? 8oz wedding ring.. a bit heavy ?

 A just system for gold accumulation..... ?

 As I've said before.... what SORT of NewWorldOrder (tm) .. do you really want ?

 I want one that's honest, open to new ideas, diverse, treasures it's history, but aims for the stars....

People who can put a number (a nice round one at that) on sustainable population are usually "control" oriented, narcissistic, and unable to adapt to change.  Since the beginning of time on earth there has been continuous cataclysmic change.  Human population growth is one of those naturally occuring phenomina of nature where a successful organism reproduces until nature curbs that population(and believe me, nature will curb that population).  People that want to maintain the status quo are missing the point that change is inevitable and natural.

On a side note, isn't it interesting how these "population limiters" always reference an "intelligent" and "fit" population.  I have a hunch that the only population they want to controll is people different from them.

Thought a bit more about this...

 The prescription above presumes a global target.. but there is absolutely no reason population issues can't be addressed nationally/ regionally with each nation choosing it's own policy and destiny..

 ie the status quo is basically ok.

 The one caveat is that it depends on respect for national borders... - no illegal immigration, and no wars fought for "lebensraum" ...

 I see Dr Hardin makes a similar point..

HARDIN: My intention, when I wrote ''Living on a Lifeboat", was to subdivide the world again, so to speak. It seemed to me that the phrase "spaceship earth" was dangerous, as it implied that we were all passengers on one ship and had an equal right to the ship's resources ... which, of course, sets up a picture of a worldwide Commons. By adopting the metaphor of a number of lifeboats—one for each nation—I was able to imply that the people on each of these small crafts are responsible for themselves and should not expect handouts—even if those donations mean survival itself—from the other boats around them.

China is already managing it's demographics, albeit crudely and with much human suffering.. - 1 child policy.

Other nations do it indirectly through control of land, housing, or cultural trditions eg the dowry system.

So, while population policy is a serious issue, it's not a *global* problem looking for a "one size fits all" global solution...

it's localised..  no need for a central body (UN) to prescribe solutions from above.

Maybe one without the self-serving ego-centric maniacs at the top thinking they can control everything.for once?

Peace On -EGP

While I agree with your conclusion that a central body prescribing global solutions would be problematic, the caveat of 'respect for national borders' probably isn't realistic. National borders are porous, and presumably always will be.

Anytime a [relatively] rich, low population growth country is next door to a poor, high population growth country, migration will occur, one way or another. And not just from LatAm to U.S., or Africa to Europe. Even within LatAm, poor Nicaraguans migrate into middle-income Costa Rica, as do poor Paraguayans into Argentina and Brazil.

While various reasons can be cited as to why population growth and average family size tend to fall with rising wealth, it's still not clear whether this will ever happen on a global basis, or happen in time. The potential linkage of population limits with eugenics makes people nervous, quite properly. But letting global pop zoom past the sustainable limit (whatever it may be -- we don't even know, and it's a moving target) and produce a human die-off is a pretty grim prospect, too.

Global population is a subject that many would like to push aside -- 'won't be a problem till after my lifetime, so why worry?' -- but the human consequences of ignoring the issue until it goes away on its own could be horrendous.

 I don't believe the question is ignored.. far from it.

 It's simply not discussed openly and frankly...

  ie - "not in front the children".

Ah, the health care debate that happening in many countries an the economic viability of treating a 70 year old with terminal cancer with a product costing $100,000 for an additional 2 months of life..... step by step until we reach "Logan's Run"  .............Of course all this is okay so long at it isn't my family member.

Changing subject slightly but still on topic, any fresh news of the East Africian drought??

Sarcastic barbs aside, this really does make me shudder.............