Manorina sums up pretty well what needs to be done. But, until we have politicians who have the common sense and the guts to do what is needed, our population will continue to climb out of control.

As it seems that most Australians are disinterested in population control, it is unlikely that we will ever have such politicians,and the crazies in Canberra will keep over-populating the country until it is far too late to do anything about it.

Our housing is now too costly, there are not enough rental properties, and we are a net importer of food. It just remains to be seen how low our standard of living will become. It has been proved time and time again that high immigration means a heavy cost to most people, with a few already rich people getting richer.

The environmental arguments against immigration have not worked; the rising costs of housing has not worked, and the increase in foodstuffs - while we export food to be sold for less than we pay - hasn't worked against immigration. And, nobody seems interested in what immigrants will do for Australia now that most of our manufacturing industries have gone overseas.

The seems to be little point in discussing the subject of population any longer, given the apathy of Australians.

An excellent article adding to the population debate.
Now - I would like another simple article suitable for passing onto friends and aquaintances highlighting the points presented.

I find that people often discuss different subjects which RELATE to the population issues. This means that people are often not talking about the same subject even though they think they are. Confusion and irritation at the stupidity of the other results.

Lets get some clarity so we can better confront those growthists with vested interests in building a bigger population problem for which we will all suffer.

(Different aspects: Population and climate results, Population and women's fertility rights, Population and defense, Population and quality of life, Population and My quality of life, Population and charity, etc etc)

25 per cent of GDP is required to expand capacity by 2 per cent!
Bwhahahahahah!
No seriously, pull the other one. O'Sullivan has some excuse because she is quoting a big-name economist. Her reasoning is thus:
"Now Using USA data, MIT economist Lester Thurow estimated that it requires 12.5 per cent of GDP to expand capacity at 1 per cent per year. For the developed world this was over $200,000 per person of net population growth. Australian estimates would suggest that figure is right in our ball-park too."
But the final estimate defies common sense. Although I haven't looked up figures, 25 per cent is something like the total housing and construction sector - which would include renewal and improvements of existing housing stock and infrastructure (of which there is already a lot), as well as whatever is needed to specifically cater for newcomers.
There are costs outside that sector of course but the figure is obviously far too high. O'Sullivan needes to take a harder look at her estimates.
Australia has been absorbing high numbers of immigrants since settlement.. admittedly the present influx is high in historical terms, and there are difficulties but then there are always difficulties.

Its pretty obvious that some people win from immigration: the middle and upper middle classes; whilst some people lose: the lower classes. So its understandable that the latter group would say and do anything to preserve their fragile economic position.

The first post in this thread shows that type of desperation. Actually some of those suggestions are insane:
"cease family assistance for children in excess of 2 for each mother."
So we should let the poor children starve? And if you took job opportunities away from foreign students far less of them would come here. Given that foreign students already heavily subsidise the education of local students, how would we then fund the shortfall? Would we pay more tax or cut money elsewhere?

rstuart, Singapore is a city-state. It has no hinterland so obviously it doesn't produce most of its own food. But with large agricultural producers in Asia it doesn't need to.

Over-population has not impacted on our food situation. Australia is not a net importer of food. It might be in the future but it isn't now. Even then the problem has been that the free trade agreement with the US has allowed heavily subsidised US agriculture to compete with less supported Australian agriculture. The result has been that farmers have left the industry. Australia actually exports around 60% of its agricultural produce: http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2009/03/27/food-exporters-looking-to-the-middle-east-for-a-timely-boost.html

So if we are importing food then we are doing it because it is cheaper for Australian consumers.

Finally, I take it that "ponzi scheme" is the fashionable term but won't any of the sceptics use the term "pyramid scheme"? Is that too 1990s? :-)

Manorina,I must admit, I was shocked upon reading your post to discover that you feel this way about the state of our country. However let's not get bogged down with that, let's get down to examining your arguement...
Firstly, I ask you the question who are we to put in place a zero immigration policy when 97% of us do not make up or descend from the indigenous population of this land and are, in fact, here in due to immigration.
Secondly, I wonder what kind of fascist-like society would we be encouraging to form if we took the approach of kicking foreigners out at the first chance we get, simply using them for our own profit; and furthmore what adverse effects this would have on our International Relations and trade, take our reccent relations with India for example and the ramifications it is having.
Next I pose to you the the question: On what basis can you claim that "We have overshot by about 100% our sustainable population level"? You say the evidence of this is "water shortage,degradation of agricultural and pastoral land and the likely effects of climate change", but how are any of these plausible justifications? Water shortage is due to current phenomenon of drought being experienced in Australia, e.g. in Victoria, which if it is caused by climate change, cannot be solely accredited to actions by the Australian population but the entire world, moreover many of our water problems are the result of flawed systems which are in need of reform, e.g. the Murray River. Any degradation of agricultural land cannot be cast as the fault of an increase in population, perhaps thinking it is due to higher demand. This would be due to inappropriate, unadapted techniques, lacking forward thinking or as previously mentioned, tough climate conditions due to climate change or the general nature of Australia, the land mass, e.g. it is 18% desert

I am surprised Manorina didn't go further ie; Euthanasia .
Whats the point of storing stupid or useless humans in Goals , old Folks Homes and Mental clinics , and the Lounge Chair brigade , go the Eskimo way discard the Burdens . Further to these ideas find out the IQ score of the author of this article , sterilize all who can't reach this score , how can lowly people possibly tick the Score Card of sustainability eg; 80 Sq Home , 3 Cars ,1 Child , all Uni Educated etc.
Some People want to live in a fantasy World and a lot do , take for example the Health situation 5000 Bureaucrats in Canberra add to that the Number from the States ? Wonder what the product is when divided by the number of Doctors .
An incredible malaise has crippled the average Aussies Brain he believes everything should be run from Canberra , WHAT ? Polio is good? Our Current Juvenile Disciple of ? thinks He with a few well Glammed up Pixies and a Raving Screaming Guitar Plucking Bald Maniac can cook anything to Perfection , I don't agree Ive got him half way between Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner , he plucks everything he touches .