as to the genocide: The UN and all of the rest of the Malthusian meglomaniacs that are supporting the New World Order, or, if you prefer, A Stable State Economy will indeed have to start limiting population by killing them off in order to feed them. See, no command economy can produce enough goods and services to support itself.

Ted Turner and the UN have publically stated that they need to reduce the human population of the earth to anywhere from 250,000,000 to one billion. The only way to do that is to kill one hell of a lot of people. The eugenicists have been around a long time. The founders of Planned Parenthood were revered by Hitler and they supported his efforts. These folks are criminal malthusian maniacs.

Demand on resources is a population growth issue, not an economic growth issue. Countries with the most vibrant and growing economies have the lowest reproductive rates, resulting in the lowest population growth rates and highest efficiency in resource utilization. For example, the United States has a current population of 304 million with a population growth rate of 9% per decade (per July 2008 statistics). The population growth trend is decreasing. In comparison, India has a current population of 1.14 billion with a population growth rate of 14% per decade. The trend is increasing. A good comparison of how improving education and economic growth slows population growth is China. Prior to China’s current educational and industrial revolution, it’s population growth was 19% per decade (despite its one-child policy). Its current population growth rate has dropped to 6% per decade. It’s population growth rate trend is decreasing.

The disparity between nations with high population growth and those with the lowest is mostly attributable to better education, better technological solutions to improve resource efficiencies, a political and social organization that supports collective solutions, and access to better health care. The result is a higher level of economic productivity. In other words, economic productivity is an effect, not the cause.

The fallacy of Daly’s doctrine is cutting economic growth will not improve conditions for the world’s inhabitants. It would have very much a reverse effect in that it would be disastrous for 2nd and 3rd world nations.

The real solution to managing resources needs to be a focus on promoting education, fostering political stability in 2nd and 3rd world nations, and technology transfer that targets improving resource management and improved reproductive choices. For the record I’m not in favor of eugenics or abortion – they’re bad substitutes for social sophistication, solving nothing in the long term (witness China). Until we start thinking along the lines of root cause, looking at what key factors actually contribute to reduced population growth and improvements in resource utilization, we’re just kidding ourselves.

However, when a commodity becomes scarce, or when new information changes society, these events are often the cause of conflict. Those conflicts have only been limited by the nature of the weapons used. The parties involved used what ever technology existed at the time. They didn\\\’t hold back.

Because there are enough nuclear weapons on the planet to render it uninhabitable, do you feel that such weapons change the dynamics involved with when it comes to working through conflicts or the transitions from one set of cultural norms to a new set of norms?

The world is a dynamic place; mechanical vehicles have replaced beasts of burden. Peat is replaced by coal, in turn replaced by petroleum, in turn replaced by natural gas, perhaps next by nuclear energy or geothermal or tidal ocean power. There is no reason for such pessimism.