It's not merely population, it's consumption and waste. I = P x C, or impact is proportional to population times consumption. Each are equally important, however while population changes relatively slowly, consumption can change overnight.

What we find is that the poor countries say, "obviously consumption is more important, you rich countries should do something!" and the rich countries say, "obviously population is more important, you poor countries should do something."

So when you say that population is more important, what you're doing is making excuses for not changing. The thing is that we Aussies, as individuals, can do most of - stop flying, get rid of our cars, stop buying new stuff, reduce meat-eating, turn off AC and heating and use fans and jumpers instead, and so on - and thus we halve our consumption in a day. But some Indian woman living in the slums of Mumbai cannot kill 3 of her 6 kids.

Thus, while population is important, it's hard to change quickly, while consumption can be changed quickly. When dealing with a problem often we'll find that there are a few ways to deal with it - we can choose the slow and difficult way, or the quick and easy way.

We Aussies prefer the slow and difficult way, because that lets us off the hook, we get to say, well, if only those stupid darkies would stop having so many babies! The most sensible course is to take the quick and easy way, and then begin on the slow and difficult one. That is, Westerners ought to begin by halving their consumption and emissions, and then we can address the world's large population.

Diplomatically that's also the most effective solution to problems of resource depletion and climate change. A lot of the international debate about what to do is dominated by a kindergarten game of "you first!" The US says any treaty where China does not reduce emissions is useless, China says why should China reduce emissions when 300 million of its people still live on less than a dollar a day, and the US uses a quarter of the world's oil and refuses to reduce, and so on. Each wants the other to act first.

Because our Western consumption is so wasteful, it's easy for us to act first. There's so much waste we can cut and not at all reduce our quality of life. But largely we spend more time whinging than acting. For example, these little Aussie battlers are four people who live in the same house and drive in four separate cars to the same workplace every work day. All drive real gas guzzlers. They go to "different shifts each morning" but because it's the morning, some of them must be just an hour or so apart, and something could be worked out - one goes to work and the other to a nearby gym or cafe for a bit, etc. They just need to pull their fingers out, use their imaginations a bit and get to it, and could at least halve their fuel use. But they'd rather whinge, and I'm fairly sure they think the high populations of the Third World are a big problem, too. This is depressingly common.

Lastly, the proven solution to high birthrate is rising education, prosperity and a political voice for women. However, for various reasons both we in the West and the males in charge in the Third World are not that keen on rising education, prosperity and a political voice for women in the Third World.

We in the West can halve our consumption and emissions today. It's time to get our shit together in a sock and wire it tight, and do it. As Yoda said, "do or no do, there is no whinge."