There are a couple of mistakes in the legend though, probably because I talked too much and confused the reporter. 

My problem with the Greens and environmentalists in general is, that they understand, too many of any species will stuff up their own habitat, yet they won’t point to human overpopulation as the main threat to our environment.

Climate change, a four million refuge city in Lebanon, hunger in many places, animal factories, life cattle exports, overfished oceans and the frenzy of digging up our resources are all just symptoms of the overpopulation.

The millions of dollars used for chasing Japanese whalers around Antarctica would be better spent on a global campaign to explain to people that it might be better to have one or two children instead of three or more.

I’m well aware that putting up my sign against CSG mining is a waste of time, unless someone with more stature starts spreading the message above.

Pity, environmentalists won’t do it and labour and the coalition see a growing economy as the only salvation.

The word mining is synonymous with unsustainable.

In 50 years time CSG will be gone forever, put into the atmosphere, where it will further damage agriculture through global warming and climate change.

We cannot risk losing any agricultural land as today’s food production already relies on fertilizers, which are mined.

Peak oil is happening now.

Peak phosphorus rock, which is used for fertilizer is estimated in two or three decades, a worry if you plan to feed people in a few hundred years time.

Or are we happy to have humanity live in caves again by the end of this millennium?

Nature will do it for us.

Children learn in Kindergarten that you cannot blow up a balloon forever or it will blow up in your face.

When they come out of university as economists, suddenly they say: ‘Yes you can’, even though they know we live on a planet with finite resources.

That’s where the idea of “we need an ever growing economy” comes from.

With a declining population we could have a receding economy and still everyone would be better off.

This is another law of nature one learns in Kindergarten, which economists like to ignore.

If you have a birthday cake and you have to share it with too many classmates, everyone gets a smaller piece.

If the world population was 2.5 billion as when I was born only a few decades ago, one could argue it was sustainable.

Seven billion and growing is not.

Sustainable should mean at least 2000 years, like since Christ was born or better still, 40000 years as Aboriginals have been here.

I can’t understand why anybody would think more people would improve their lives.

If you met seven million people in your life, which I doubt, you still would not have met the other 99.9% of the world’s population.

And they all want to eat and have a decent life, at the expense of their habitat.

When the CSG craze is over, I might change my sign to read:

Think of your grandchildren, the fewer there are, the better their lives.