A great article - there is only one thing wrong with his argument: we are no more perceptive than the bacteria in the test tube. We are doomed.

It looks like the only way to stop us killing ourselves is when the world population is greatly reduced. Possibilities are

(i) an ecological disaster that wipe out a large proportion of the world's population.

(ii) Countries that have adopted the Western Anglo-Saxon or white European model of growth would eventually die off. The birth rate of these countries are well below the replacement level. So you see lots of old white people in Europe, the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Countries (which have adopted this growth model) such as Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan and Singapore would soon die off too within the next two generations. All these people are bringing lots of money to their graves when they die!

So where the hell is our beloved new prime minister at, with his increase in immigration to record levels and his boosting of the baby bonus again to a record level?

How could it be possible that this person is working towards destroying our future even more strongly than Howard?

Who could ever have imagined that?

How can we cop the staggering duplicity of being told that we will as a nation reduce our greenhouse gas emissions very significantly and adjust our pressure on the environment downwards in all sorts of ways, while at the same time copping an increase to the already rapid continuous unending increase in the number of resource-consumers and waste-producers?

How can Rudd justify this?

How can the Australian populace for one moment cop it without expressing enormous outrage?

How can Australia possibly NOT be heading directly towards a stable population scenario, with the greatest of urgency?

What the hell is wrong with out political system, and our collective psyche, that can allow us to be so profoundly hooked into this future-destroying momentum?

We could make a huge and very easy advance towards sustainability tomorrow, simply by reducing immigration down to at least net zero, which would still allow us to have a humanitarian category larger than it is now and some skills intake…. and kill the outrageous baby bonus dead in its tracks.

The continuous growth mindset is still so profoundly entrenched. It will be our destructor if it is not addressed urgently.

I just hope to goodness that all the environmental momentum of the last few years will very quickly evolve into the essential next step; the realisation that a steady-state economy and a stable population are essential elements of a sustainable society.

Ah Ludwig, you are disturbing the edifice – our castle in the air. Like a feather on the breath of God, we promise to tread ever more lightly in our castle so that we can continue with growth – forever.
Uplift your vision towards the Almighty, take in the twinkling stars for an hour from the once-a-year lights-out city, and see that it is good. And do the same next year in comfortable satisfaction that a miniscule something worthwhile has been achieved without disturbing the rate of growth of retail sales of unnecessary consumables; from more individual spending multiplied by more spenders.
Pull your horns in, or be treated like Beelzebub by the economist/entrepreneur advisers to the Real Estate, Property, Retail, Advertising, Mining, etc., industries controlling our democratic political system. White-anting the screen they have erected around the nether regions of our castle-without-foundations will get you burnt for heresy; on OLO and elsewhere. The Vatican will strike the first match for that, now they have assessed that Muslims have out-bred/converted the Christian community to take ascendancy in numbers.
Give reality miss if you want to get with the strength of community persuasion. On the other hand, it would be nice to persuade Rudd to have the guts to act honorably and be statesmanlike towards action fundamental to the benefit of society in the future, and the present.

Colinsett, don't hold your breath mate.

David

David Suzuki is correct, in the longer term biology will always
rule over economics. It is something that Julian Simon never did
understand, he was the economist who tried to value biodiversity and
had a bet with Ehrlich. Julian forgot that without biodiversity,
you will not have humanity.

The thing is, as a species, it seems we refuse to address the ever
increasing human population problem. We add another 80 million
or so to the global population each year and it is hardly debated.

Until we do, all the cycling to save the environment and many other
feelgood measures, will achieve little except to make us feel better.

So perhaps the Tragedy of the Commons is correct after all and it
will take a giant collapse and Mother Nature, to sort it all out in
the end, with a painfull thud. People need pain to learn it seems.