It is interesting that Tim Flannery imagines this scenario when imagining a future "Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control."

"Inevitably, one day some commissioner will suggest that their work would be more effectively done were they to concentrate on the root cause of the issue -- the total number of people on the planet....."

This issue is the one that would, in Flannery's scenario,transform the commission into a global totalitarian government.

My guess is that we are already nearer to this than most people are aware. The policy of allowing maximum die-off from catatrophes is a start at reducing population. The policy of concentrating wealth and power into the hands of ever fewer people is also an attempt to squeeze out the "useless eaters" than drain resources. Finally, the policy of endless Resource War (however disguised) is the current form of the policy of "Kill Off" or genocide.

Remember the Indian Wars? The Europeans found over 12 million Native Americans here and eventually herded the remaining couple of hundred thousand onto reservations to wither away there.

Now the "Indian Wars" have gone global. Soldiers often refer to Iraq as "Injun Country." Over one million Iraqis have died as a result of the Invasion/Occupation, and millions more have fled to overburden neighboring countries with refugees. Recent Indian Wars have been carried on in Central and South America more covertly -- for the most part. Now the battle is being taken more overttly to the continent of Africa as well. This involves a process of destroying infrastructure in such a way as to thin population quickly as well as to sieze resources.

We continue the work of "Manifest Destiny" and continue to interpret "The White Man's Burden" in a violent way. We have to destroy the planet in order to save it.

Maybe we need a new name for global warfare: GIW, or "Global Indian War."

Many may believe more kids means more chances to win the lottery- they cannot recognize that more kids means losing more in the lottery

1 million iphones sold, rah, rah!

It is absolutely true that without population reduction all else is in vain. But this must be accompanied by other changes which will not be inconsequential in the long run so long as the population problem IS addressed along with these changes. Both issues, population and all else need wide international cooperation in order to protect and foster the needed changes at local levels.

Ironically, Cheney/Bush may be key players in bringing this about. This may be the last empire. The unity achieved in defeating it might be turned to creating a framework in which reality can be addressed on an global scale. The
coming 20-50 years promise to be perhaps the most interesting in the history of the species. Survival of the species in anything approaching a civilized condition depends on our acting as a species with a collective will and brain (meaning all the little brains and wills that make it up are able to argue and think freely).

To laugh at the folly of the species -- which is us --is fine, otherwise we go nuts. But as one gets older and there's less and less of one's own future to care about, what's left is to care about if not the future of the species? There's no hope for my grandchildren if there's no hope for the species.

We never talk about the one thing that is needed - dramatic population reduction. It is too unsettling and uncomfortable to confront. And until we do, all other efforts at making "small changes" is just that - inconsequential in the long run.

Francois.

The key isn't the population per se, but what humans that DO exist are creating that is more useful than what they consume. We know that the current answer is a negative relationship: we just consume stuff and don't think about what our species should be contributing overall.

If we took all the 'overpopulated' humans and put them on a grass diet and let them roam the plains like bison used to, they could contribute to the fertility of the soil. In the pragmatic sense, that is how we have to apply our technology: through a Net Creative paradigm, rather than a Net Consumptive one.

Most of the 'overpopulation' of the world doesn't consume all that much in resources. It is the 'civilized' world that is raping the planet while complaining about lack of purpose and the 'meanness' of their competitive way of living.

Cooperation, Creativity, Community. That is what the future will be, whether we choose it as a large group or as a smaller, surviving one.