Holy Moly, it would appear that this article is actually NOT tongue-in-cheek, but that the author actually believes in what he has written! ( :>|

There is no point in arguing the case. I'll just point out that at long last there are many scientists, academics, some economists and business-people and all sorts of others, comprising a now large portion of our population, who can see the absurdity in continuing with rapid population growth and in not striving to reach a stable population at some point in the near future. And the mainstream media has grabbed hold of it big-time and not in a manner that ridicules it, but in a way that treats it as a very serious concern.

Even the person at the very core of our traditionally endless-rapid-growth-supporting government, our Prime Minister, has come out against a big Australia and in support of a sustainable Australia with a much lower population growth rate.

This is a huge milestone. It could only happen if there was real merit in shifting ground so fundamentally from Rudd’s big Australia and extreme rate of immigration and if the government could sense a large level of support for this change.

So it would appear that Greg Barns is going to find himself to be a member of a progressively smaller minority holding onto the bizarre idea that rapid population growth with no end in sight is actually better for us all than the opposite.

I often wonder when those who promote growthist economic policy (let's be honest this is about increasing profits) will realise that resources are not finite and whether we will be standing wall to wall until someone realises this basic fact.

Yes innovation, invention can all reduce impact on resources but at some time there will be a point where the impact of unfettered population growth will surpass those innovations - even if we all disagree on exactly what is a sustainable target.

The only thing I agree with is that the politicians are making platitudes about population to appease the masses as though the will of the masses is something to 'contend'. I thought we were living in a democracy.

Population is not an issue in Western Sydney despite the sudden interest in the usually forgotten Western Sydney. While Sydney and Melbourne are indeed most affected by lack of planning and infrastructure, and hence one can understand the frustration, they are not the only areas affected by resource use. Just look at those along the Murray-Darling and the effect on our river systems and yet despite this you still have people proposing more dams. It is just ludicrous.

Why is an ageing population put up as a reason for growth? It is equally ludicrous that we argue caring for an ageing population means we have to set ourselves up for another generation of ageing Australians. Lets not scapegoat the elderly for some commercial purpose.

Growth is just about increasing markets for profit, nothing wrong with making a profit, but not at the cost of commonsense and to the point where humans are actively working against their own survival. Using side issues like racism or ageing as a counter-argument just means logical argument is on shaky ground.

Greg, what have you been smoking to come up with such rubbish?
Is there any limit to growth, and if so when will we get there?
At 2008’s rate of increase (2.2%), we were on track to 45 million by about 2040. The rev-heads for higher population enjoyed it - cheering, much like a dog with its head out of a fast-travelling ute; and of similar intelligence.
Those rev-heads have pulled their heads in a bit - (maybe smoke in the eye?) - but still want more of the action; and to oblige them, there has been an easing off, so that our last radar check (Dec 2009) recorded only 2.0 %. Maybe this is less eye-watering for the growthists - and will delay the 45 million until 2043.
Of course 45 million is not a destination; as populate-or-perish types such as Harry Triguboff knows. People of such vision see a continent with its forests, national parks, grazing lands, and deserts, all dusted off and paved over with his urbane thoughts. Harry, an outspoken enthusiast, says a hundred million an’ a’, an’ a’ should be piped in to his merry tune. Not that a hundred million is a stopping-off point if they get weary of incessant travel - whatever the speed. If growth is needed now, it will be needed even more at that point, in order to provide the vastly increased needs: services, skills, the innate intelligence which is lacking (if such “visionary” folk are to be believed).
It’s biblical vision - leaving us with not a loaf of bread, nor a fish, to feed the multitude: nothing, from a displaced/desiccated landscape, where walking on water would be a dream indeed.
Greg, get off the pot long enough to have a clear vision of the fundamental reality. And the incidental smoke-and-mirror supports you use to underpin the argument for continuing growth could do with a bit of attention: without more cross-bracing they will collapse when put to the test. A bit like a bridge being built over a highway.

Greg, at what point would you consider Australia 'full', and what state do you think the world will be in at that point? Are you aware that after 2050 the world population is expected to decline, and some even predict that it will collapse - don't you think we should be planning for no-growth economies and a gradual transition to same, for the sake of future generations? By 2070 the world will be close to the end of oil, the end of coal and the end of iron ore (to name just a few vital resources) - what then?

Greg, I agree with your stand 100%!

Here in the Philippines we have the neo-Malthusians and the 'reproductive health" folks saying there are far too many people here (almost 100,000,000!)so we'd better start some drastic family planning soon when the real culprits all along have been the the lack of economic opportunities at home leading to the exodus of millions of overseas foreign workers (OFWs)propping up a stagnant domestic economy, as well as the pervasive culture of corruption which closes off life chances to the majority poor.

But where are all the people going to come from to care for the aging population we already have here - from 'overseas', or from right at home? And if only the wealthy tax evaders could be made to comply with the existing tax laws, this new government would have some funding to spend on things that are really needed, like health, education and welfare instead of paying off the public debt, currently 20 centavos in every peso.

We need to see a booming population as an opportunity, not as a threat.

Greg, These no growth low growth neo - nimbys believe they are the font of all wisdom and fear competition as they get older and their home values tilt on the bloated congestion inspired with their nimby no new roads, dams or railways under green labor state governments.