Many valid points in this article.

I suspect the zoo is in for a reorganization.Thomas Malthus had a few words to say about that some time ago.

A new and better paradigm may emerge from the reorg. - but,then again,maybe not.

How short sighted we all are. I have been saying for the last 40 years that over population is directly or indirectly responsible for 90 percent of the problems that we suffer today.

Religions compete for adherents and are certainly becoming more intolerant of the faith and attitudes others hold. Our overcrowding creates excessive pollution and shortages. Everything is becoming scarce yet we want more and more at the expense of land, water, air and other resources. Why can people not see that continued expansion is unsustainable.

If there was ever conclusive proof of this, just watch the series of video clips on Youtube by Dr Albert Bartlett

Zoo? Carbon neutral kennels? No co-operation in capitalism?

The more think about it, the more I agree with George Meglogenis' article in The Oz last year that the Internet gives people carte blanche to post whacko articles like this.

Soon old Manorina will start rabbiting on about cutting the baby bonus, cutting paid paternity leave, kicking out international students, stopping immigration and create sterlisation camps for women. He could well be the new face of the Liberal Party.

I half wonder if some of the 'burn down the zoo' posters here are not taking the pee or maybe they've just gone off medication. I mean this article is perfect fodder for irony and send up. I wonder if they've suddenly found a sense of humour to taunt the humanists - they're using IRONY.

Cheryl if your position is that the people who question our pursuit of growth are seriously misguided then may be this paper from the CSIRO will give you reason to stop and think.
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf
The link is to CSIRO's critique of the club of Rome's 1972 findings which argued that the growth paradigm was flawed. They made some predictions and the CSIRO has tested those predictions. Thus far it would seem that their predictions have been uncannily accurate. On that basis we are heading for a global collapse at around 2050; unless of course we make some tough policy decisions.

I endorse Cheryl's comments. The Zoo analogy does not stand up to a moment's scrutiny. After all, the zoo animals do not commute to work every day, take holidays or go and work in an overseas zoo for a time if they can satisfy the foreign zoo's visa requirements. They do not arrange a loan from a bank to buy a better pen, and they don't write batty articles suggesting that they are just zoo animals.
As for the business about space, the problem has never been room to live. The author seems to be under the impression that we live in a old-fashioned Boer republic where each family required two farms (one for summer, one for winter) to live.
These sorts of ravings should just be ignored..

Baygon, I mean no disrespect and I like the CSIRO. More power to them. You see mate, the politics behind this silly zoo story and a few others from the anti-pops is the rebirth of an old kind of tyranny.

It's the tyranny of measuring things. How much energy do you use? How much space do you use? How much food do you consume? How far do you drive everyday? How many newspapers do you buy? Can you see that there are some fundamental principles that are very wrong behind this fanatical desire to measure things for the sake of the planet - which has far from being determined?

How about - how much is a life worth? Is a small Indian man who uses less water and petrol in New Delhi worth the same as a manin Sydney who drives a Prius? Buggered if I know. It's a meaningless question.

But in the act of measuring some people find meaning. When the anti-pops say 'us' they mean you and me. Remember that.

In 2011 we will have our very first population policy for Australia. No doubt it will use sophisticated peer-reviewed economic and environmental modelling from which certain outcomes can be predicted within a margin of variation.

The aim is to get a better handle on our 'carrying capacity' for people. Has the driest continent on Earth got an optimal population level? Can we comfortably sustain our quality of life with our nations (fast depleting) natural resources? If so what is it?

Our current growth rate is the fastest in the developed world. For the past few decades, skilled migration has been on an auto-pilot setting, but that may change soon after the first population policy is released.

Hopefully population modelling will give our leaders some useful insights and trends: Are we are heading into a national collapse or have we nothing to worry about ..... until we reach a population of 36 million?

Could we survive if the predicted global collapse really does occur at around 2050 assuming the world's population continues to grow exponentially from where it is now? Perhaps we should give thought to helping neighbouring nations with the population modelling to assist them in setting their population policies.

Looking back from 2050, the one child policy may seem a conservative and humane approach compared to the harsh alternatives that nature and populations in desperation throw at us.

John Tons
You do realise, don't you, that growing one's own food, making one's own house, making one's own clothes etc. uses up more resources per unit of output, than obtaining these things by buying them from operations that enjoy economies of scale? For some reason, that appears to be pure romanticism, many environmentalists seem to think it would be better for the environment if we use more natural resources to acheive the same end result.

Also the difference between zoo animals and human beings is that humans are not zoo animals with owners; and it is a mistake to think that governments have, could have, or should have the role of owners. That is the philosophy of the animal farm.

The author has a point. Too many animals or humans equals fights and lower standards.

However, rather than live like a hippy and grow herbs, I would prefer fewer people in the world, and certainly fewer in Australia.

Nice one john,
the zoo analogy is another way of looking at the future.
And our future will be very exciting as we discover that our lives depend upon cheap abundant oil.

Looking back at all history, it is clear that humanity expanded when there was plenty to eat then reversed when not. It is a good aim to avoid this 'normal' situation of the past. I mean war and starvation.

John would do well to get that arable land into production quickly. :)

I read that CSIRO report referred to by BAYGON. It is simply ridiculous. The Club of Rome projections were for things to get better before the general collapse around the middle of this Century due to the exhaustion of minerals ect.. The report finds that everything has been getting better since 1972 so therefore the Club of Rome projections must be right! If you don't believe me read it for yourself. The fact that the author works for CSIRO does not mean the report has valdiity, it means that the organisation is producing ridiculous reports. There is no reason to suspect resource shortages either now or in the future, even in petroleum. Although there may be more price spikes to come they will be due to a lack of production capacity, not resource shortage.

So nice that Curmudgeon still has the recipe for the magic pudding.

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.

So you are an immigrant, Cheryl. That explains a lot. You are just another whinger who doesn't like the fact that things are not the way you want them in a county, for who knows what reason, let you in.

I clearly rattled your cage. Fancy going through my 'record' back to 4 years! There has only be one other extremely angry person who has gone to that trouble to get his 'own back' on me.

I'm only too happy to own the 'terrible' things I have said about John Howard (he is not a fellow poster, unlike the people you call names; Generation Y, who are also not fellow posters and were not addressed individually like the people you foul- mouth regularly; and multiculturalism was enforced and it is an obnoxious policy. You'll have to remind me who I called lickspittles. I'm not going to waste time finding the particular post. I can’t even remember referring to John Howard, but I’ll take your word for it. Fancy you, a big hater of what you misguidedly believe to be the ‘right wing’ taking offence at a remark made about John Howard!

I'm glad you've got a favourite. It's a pity I can't sign it for you. On that one, if you can prove I’m wrong, I will be happy to withdraw the remark.

You don't get it, though, do you Cheryl. You, like your 'gentleman' friend, call the few regular posters on OLO unpleasant names directly, just because what they say doesn't meet with your approval. If you think that lambasting a policy or a politician is the same as abusing an ordinary person just because he or she expresses an opinion, then you are a very confused person indeed.

Nice to chat with you. As a friendly gesture, could I recommend “Anger Management for Dummies” to you?

We're all immigrants Leigh. I understand that you have some issues with women, immigrants and Africans. Profiling your comments here on OLO its probable you're on medication and are writing in a confined space. If, as the writer of this article suggests, we live in a zoo, then I'll call you Mr Arachnid. You seem like a harmless variety.

Cheryl,

I'm not an immigrant. I'm a fourth generation Australian. Like all but about 3% of Australians, I don't have any convict blood in me, either. No one born here is an immigrant, Cheryl.

Problems with women? I don't judge all women on the ones like you. Problems with immigrants? No. Only those like you. I grew up with the first of the mass immigrants post-war. There was nothing wrong with them. Problems with Africans? No. Don't know any of them. The only reference to my comments on Africans was that they couldn't run their own countries (or something like that; you're the expert on me and what I said). No attempt to prove me wrong on that, I notice.

I see that you think that you are a analyst or therapist of some sort! Give it up. You know nothing about me. Try to work yourself out if you can. I was serious about the anger management book.

And still, you need to call people names: I'm to be Mr. Arachnid!

You are too sad to bother with.