Have a look at this map of world poverty... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Basically the more red, the more poverty... But the surprise is that it is a map of FERTILITY - how many children are being born.

You know how our government seems unable to fund hospitals, schools and roads, and this is with our population failing to produce enough children to replace ourselves... imagine the problems of fundiong these essential

services if the population was not declining, but trippling every twenty years... no wonder they are poor. Worse than schools and hospitals, they somehow they also need to find more farmland too!

50 years ago, perhaps we could have ended poverty. But now there are so many more poor that the problem is so much bigger. For example, there are 60 million shanty-town dwellers in India alone, and only 20 million Australians... Let alone Indonesia, the Pacific Islands, New Guinea... What about Africa? Sth America? etc etc...

Why is China becomming so rich and powerfull? The one-child policy. It means they can finally afford to catch up with the infastructire and education that nations need to get ahead and build wealth.

I don't like the 'one child policy', but Thailand and surging Iran (Think nuclear power) also have zero-population growth due to marketing, free contraception and free choice. It's not really the feminist idea that educating women reduces population growth (think Iran, they're not keen on educating women)...

...continued

... Continued...

Because the 'right' number of children is what an economy, and the planet, both need! Too many kids leads to poverty, exploitation of natural resources, de-forrestation, overgrazing, growing deserts...

What succeds is explaining to people that too many kids leads to poverty, and long-lasting free contraceptive implants. Eventually compulsary education and urbanisation also drive down birthrates, because they make kids expensive. This tends to come along at the same time as education for all, which creates the feminist myth that only educating women decreases birthrates... it does, but that's only a small part of the picture.

On the other hand, too few kids also leads to economic calamity.

Too few kids, Like Japan, and more recently, the rest of the western world, leads to economic collapse, financial crisis, decades of economic stagnation and unsustainable pension and helthcare costs...

Why is the 'aging population' such a bad thing here in Australia? Surely it means we are living longer, and isn't that a good thing?

The problem is not an 'aging' population, it is that we are suiciding... failing to produce enough kids to replace ourselves.

Here we need to give tax reductions for kids so middle class parents can afford the kids we want.

Meaning that single mums are pressured into having more kids than they can look after. Those on welfare are pumping out kids like there is no tomorrow because of the welfare bribes to have lots of kids, and incentives to be un-married.

Also making divorce fairer, because Australian men don't want to become dads... so many lovely professional women can't start families. Men aren't commitment-phobic, they are rationally afraid. Afraid of having their kids stolen by divorce lawyers.

Well said PNP. Ludwig asks "What can be done?". As you point out, The provision of affordable contraception for all who want it in the world would be a step in the right direction. We should be treating the commodities boom as the perfect opportunity to move away from a growth based economy.

@PNP
Most of us who have kids pay very little or no tax as it is, education and medical care are to all intents and purposes free of charge unless you choose to pay for them.
I read somewhere that even if migration was reduced to zero tomorrow we'd still be heading for 30+ million.
There is also the possibility that if we do have an economic downturn that large numbers of migrants will leave to seek greener pastures, as happened in Ireland.
We may end up with "Ghost suburbs" like they have in Dublin.

Crikey, what planet do you live on, Jay of Melb? I have kids and have paid between $20-30 income tax annually (with up to $5k back, living remote/outback) for most of the last decade. I'm not what I'd consider a high income earner, either, and many of the "outback perks" are taxed. Year to date- over $12k. I don't get Family Allowance any more, my child is disabled and gets a measly pension.

It is hard to disagree with the author.
I would go further and translate the author's code into more concrete language:

<<Discourage development of enclaves of language and religious communities that remain insular and tend to resist integration.
- Ensure that immigrants are composed of social and cultural groups that are largely compatible with Australian norms or can be easily adopted by them.
- Establish bona-fides and background of all immigrants to eliminate those with criminal background or extreme views which may pose a threat to law and order.>>

You would have to be an ostrich or a multiculturalist not to recognise which group would logically be excluded should the above immigration wish list be implemented.
Sweden is starting to realise the nightmare it has unleashed onto itself with the recent car bombings in Stockholm, not to mention the long ongoing problems of Malmo.
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/12/11/two-explosions-in-stockholm-1-killed-2-injured/

Australia must bite the bullet before it too becomes an extension of the Middle East.

Islamic extremism cannot be contained once it hits Western shores,
contra the illusions of the multicultural dreamtime self-deluders.
We must not let them take us down with them.

Mohammedans must be excluded from any immigration program
for the sake of the future of this country.