When will you people realise?
It is not politicians or rich people or businesses pushing this growth bs it is CAPITALISM. Capitalism is predicated on there being growth everlasting. If not for the destruction of 2 world wars and the resulting growth of rebuilding and technology advances capitalism would have failed long ago. Todays crisis/es of confidence are signs of capitalism getting out of control. Too much power and money in too few hands with nothing to do with it but lend on any old fool scheme going. Booms and collapses are capitalisms forte. The majority have gotten poorer and cant afford anything but indebted servitude and mindless consumerism.

Our world is finite and as the Incas, Easter island and the deserts across what was once the fertile birthplace of civilisation show we are not above nature and if we push the limits we will suffer and die out the same as any overpopulated species. Relying on science to save us is about as logical as praying to god (or the flying spaghetti monster) to save us.

"Capitalism knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

Gee Michael, it would an honour to write an article for OLO but really, many of the comments for the anti-populationists do the job for me.

Check out comments such as 'lines being drawn in the sand' re people who have kids. Check out the rabid anti-capitalism of Mikk, which is a common sentiment amongst the anti-pops, ie, all economic growth is bad.

The problem is Mike is that neither you or the Unsustainable Pops of Oz have any clear policy on how to reduce Australia's pop except by force.

Again OLO demonstrates how sticky this topic is. It is not possible to have rational debate without the pro-unfettered growthists throwing in all sorts of paranoic claims regarding anti-human practices. The irony is that in the future if we continue to promote growth some nutter despot will probably start suggesting absurd methods to curtail population growth.

Economic growth is an oft touted phrase that people trot out because they hear it all the time from the pollies, the media and the corporates.

Corporatism has ensured that we digest this economic growth mantra without really thinking about long term consequences. The Ageing population furphy is the first in a long line of excuses that we will see trotted out by both the Lib/Nat and Labor. The Greens seem a bit wishy washy so far on sustainability which is a shame.

Our latest government is trotting out the Ageing population myth as an excuse for growth, while ignoring the fact that all one is doing is creating the same problem when that generation hits retirement. Do we keep going on at an unrelenting rate to offset a continuing ageing population? That is one thing that we know, death and taxes, age gets to us all.

We need to ride the wave of the current retirement of the baby boomers, afterall most of them paid into a government scheme even before superannuation, and were told they would be looked after by government.

What happened to all that money? There needs to be a safer government managed retirement fund that is protected in legislation to ensure that money does not find its way into general revenue. Private super is no guarantee - it only serves the corporate interest not a retirement interest. Many have lost their retirement savings through fraudulent, risk taking and shonky super companies. Where is the logic?

Really Cheryl, you can't substitute inaccurate assertion for facts just to satisfy your world view and your antagonism towards anyone who doesn't share it.

For example, your claim "The problem is Mike is that neither you or the Unsustainable Pops of Oz have any clear policy on how to reduce Australia's pop except by force" is just nonsense.

Why? Because even with the baby bonus, Australia's natural increase is below replacement rate. And because our predicted population growth is based entirely in maintaining the high immigration levels of recent years. Reducing our level of immigration is a matter of government policy, no force required. Ditto reducing our population, or keeping it stable.

The argument is not whether we can, but whether we should. I think we have got the message that you are in the 'shouldn't' camp.

Candide
So the policy will not be enforced?

It's obvious that the world is over-populated. There are too many people, aren't there? Too much of everyone else, and just enough of me! Human beings are a plague species. Not only that, every one of them is breathing out carbon dioxide. This is bad for the environment. As pollution is morally evil, and as no-one has a right to harm the environment, so people don't have a right to exist. Their numbers should be forcibly controlled. Who can honestly put his hand on his heart and declare that, if we woke up tomorrow and one or two billion people had died, that would be such a bad thing? The state's use of police to enforce policy does not involve force and therefore no ethical question arises when we use force for engineering society, only the merely technical question of which would be the most efficient way to do it. It is capitalism, deliberately producing things to satisfy human wants, that is to blame. The state represents society, and therefore stands far above mere petty individual selfish interests, like wanting to be alive, to feed one's children, and to seek a better life. The world has enough for everyone's need - like my need for broadband - but not enough for everyone's greed - like the people who want to come to Australia and enjoy a higher standard of rice. When we have eliminated the evils of capitalism, and have public ownership of the means of production - then we won't have a problem with excess population that's for sure