Ateday,
I don't understand why the anti-pop movement exists at all, what's the point of a movement which has no goals?
We on the right normally dismiss people who claim to be able to see the future as charlatans, eliminate the state and open the borders and we'll see what happens, history would argue against any grossly negative outcomes.

Matt Moran,
A Facebook group eh? I rest my case.
E-activism and real world activism are two different things, online activism doesn't work in the real world, social media is a role playing game like Dungeons and Dragons, people choose classes and alignments and play out a fantastic adventure based on a framework devised by the dungeon master.
People also cheat at this role playing game:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/swedish-feminists-buy-their-facebook-fans/

Ah Matt,

You're Mr Everywhere, Webmaster for both the SPA and SPP. Where do you find the time working your IT?

I noted this morning that one of your minions posted this article on the SPP Facebook page, where you quickly removed it. Why? You're frightened of your dwindling membership reading criticism. Webmaster for group think?

Happy World Population Day! I'll keep publicising your parties psychotic drive to drop Australia's population to 7 million people (quoting you).

Here's a bit more publicity for you.

Here’s the sociobiological roots of your movement:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/06/07/stop-breeding-nations-sake

Here’s the SPP/SPA's anti-green and anti-trade position:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/fortress-australia-green-washing-the-future-20131021-2vwzy.html

A snapshot of the terrible history of your movement:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/population-alarmists-disregard-human-feelings-20131010-2vb5y.html

And here’s a story on the anti-capitalist roots of the SPA/SPP:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/why-the-nogrowth-parties-are-wrong/story-fni6unxq-1226773654109

Jay,
I can`t speak for anyone else but for me I would not want to see ALL life extinguished from this planet.
As I stated I have no descendants but I am sure that many others do and would like their line, to use an expression only, keep going in a sustainable way.
However I make the point that we, Homo Sapiens, are only one of many animal species. As such we do not own this planet. We merely share it with ALL other animal species. We have no right to destroy them as we are ourselves.
Homo Sapiens is neither better nor worse than any other species. We certainly are different and evidence seems to indicate that perhaps we ARE worse because we are the only animal species actively engaged in destroying our only home by trashing our environment, for our own personal gratification.
Personally after I fall off my perch I will not care what happens but, having had a damn good life, it may be nice if a few more animal species, HS included, can do the same.

Jay, it's actually about population freedom. Malcolm King is what you might call a vested interest and/or represents vested interests. If you've looked at his articles on the SPP (and now he's attacking SPA), but contrast this with the information readily available on the respective websites, you will find the articles are factually bankrupt and extremely biased.

Australia has currently double births to deaths and will have births over deaths for decades. We are not in danger of dying out.

In terms of Australia specifically, it really depends on what sort of future you want. Under the current lib/lab/greens policy of rapid population growth, we are on track to double in number by 2050 with an estimated 75% coming from immigration - despite the rhetoric, the boats make up perhaps 5% of our total intake.

But more importantly, where these deliberately high population growth rates are a problem for the people in Australia is that it applies downward pressure to wages, increases living costs and operating costs (falling most heavily on small-businesses - the bread and butter of an economy - and paradoxically, the ones the major parties profess to be trying to help), while at the same time, sending returns to capital (usually, counter-productive investment) up - and the benefactors of this system, send large donations to both parties to keep this going. It is the nature of the ponzi scheme.

At the end of the day, it's up to you, but our state of affairs is buckling under the weight of the Lib/Lab/Greens policy, so we will be in meltdown if we keep this up for much longer.

Interestingly, Rob Burgess, a previously rabidly pro 'big Australia' advocate, is now questioning our rapid population growth, like his boss Alan Kohler in this article - I highly recommend you read it.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/7/8/politics/awkward-time-mention-migration#comment-719366

It took over 200,000 years for the world's population to reach 1 billion and another 123 to reach 2 billion. Today human population stands at 7.2 billion with another billion added every 12-14 years. Does any part of this sound sustainable? Tomorrow on #WorldPopulationDay, consider what you can do in the face of this growing crisis, and visit populationmedia.org to learn more.

Matt Moran

An interesting read in your link.

“we need a couple of hundred thousand migrants every year to stop the out-of-control housing market crashing to earth”

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/7/8/politics/awkward-time-mention-migration#comment-719366

I would think that selling more and more real estate is what immigration is all about.

Nothing else.