Baygon, I read it too and it's bollocks on par with the youtube citations of the anti-population/anti-growthists.

I'm still reluctant to let go of the thought that articles like these on population, food, growth, the apocalypse are not some sort of reverse joke or ironic dadaist exhibition on how off with the fairies some people can be.

I know, I know, I'll be damned in hell, consumed by a Mayan curse when the day of judgement comes, but this really is a stunt isn't it? If it is, I want to be in your gang.

so do we exterminate the less 'evolved' races or continue to murder the more 'evolved' (unborn)? One day people will be smart enough to know that when God says its over its over. Silly little insurance policies in storing a little food away is as reliable as your superannuation.

Cheryl,

And I though CJ Morgan was the nastiest and most poisonous on OLO. You are a very angry woman, and use language that even he doesn’t.

‘Bollocks’, ‘masturbators’, ‘racists’, ‘tossers’ ‘whackos’ and anything derogatory that you can throw at people whose views you don’t like.

Calm down. You are making a fool of yourself. We just had a purge on name-calling and nastiness, but it didn’t stop you for long.

Incidentally, I haven't heard the archaic word 'cobber' used by anyone except you for decades. Is it because that you are a downtrodden immigrant, unfamiliar with up to date idiom, that you are so angry?

Leigh,

Thank you for taking that long walk up to the high moral ground. Us downtrodden immigrants can't see that far.

My comments are honestly held and without reference to personalities.

Here are a few of yours:

Twerp of a man (John Howard) Nov 30, 2007
Generation Y should have been smothered at birth, 30 Nov 2007
Since the enforcement of multiculturalism the cowardly lickspittles... July 2006

and my favourite

... it should be clear to even the biggest dunderhead that Africans are simply not capable of running their own countries, Jan 2008.

As for CJ Morgan, he is clearly a scholar and a gentleman, unlike you.

The notion that opposing population growth is the same as drawing up the drawbridge with regard to migration is false. I have no doubt that some use population policy as an excuse to stop all migration but that is by no means necessarily the case.
There are elements of our migration programme that should be quarantined. The first relates to the family reunion programme the second to Australia discharging its responsibilities as a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. (The bipartisan stance on refugees is fundamentally immoral)
What is opposed is the skilled migration policy. There are two sound reasons for opposing this even if you are not concerned about population growth. The first relates to the impact that the skilled migration policy has on the home country - in many instances these are developing countries that have paid to develop those skills - if we want to make poverty history one way to do that is to ensure that skilled people can contribute to their domestic economies. The second objection is that it provides the means to hide government's incompetent planning and providing sufficient funds for appropriate education programmes.
Essentially the anti population growth position opposes any attempts to use government policy to artificially increase our population.

While I think much of the anti-population position is strawman politics, there is one area where they might be on solid ground and that's the fact that our two largest cities are clogged with traffic.

I'm half thinking the population debate is an opportunity for an urban design debate.