Why does everybody talk about an "aging population" and not talk about a middle-class genocide. We are aging because we aren't able to have enough children to replace those dying.

Around the World, the middle classes are dying out.

Tragically many professional women can't get husbands and are destined to die childless. Good people who would love to be wonderful grandparents are seeing their families die out as their children either refuse, or fail, to have children.

Put simply, men realise the goal-posts have been moved and are refusing to become fathers in droves. Too many good fathers have had their kids stolen by the divorce lawyers that is is a common wisdom now to avoid 'commitment' at all costs. For example, Australia has the highest rate of vasectomies in the World.

Not only that by social engineering in the school system means that now for every male uni studnet, there are two females. Since women don't 'marry down' theis means there is a real 'man drought', brough on by educational discrimination against innocent boys.

Finally, middle class parents can't afford the children they want. We should give tax reductions (instead of means-tested payments) for kids.

The whole idea of increasing the population is redundant.
We are entering a period of zero growth, which short of an energy
miracle happening will be followed by contraction.

We are facing a very difficult time financially right now and there is
next to no funds available for infrastructure.
I am speaking world scale here, not necessarily how Australia will see it.
However as China contracts, don't laugh, it is a certainty, we will be
in the same boat as all the rest. It is just that there is a time delay.
Europe and the US are about to go through a ordeal of financial stress
that must have an effect on us and we should be preparing for it, not
bringing in more people abd trying to fund the necessary infrastructure.

Too many think it will be business as usual.
The sand has got into their ears so they cannot hear either.

Sure eyejaw, population is a good in itself. It refreshes the gene pool (something the socio bio/anti-pops know about); it provides new workers for industry, new skills, and widens the tax base. Population is the generator of universities and new research; it provides workers from offshore, who initially do the jobs that Australians don't want to do.

Population (lets call them people) are a generator of small businesses, they are creators of capital in themselves and generate income through sales; population provides cultural diversity within current cultures which is a social and may be an artisitic good; population provides us with trade contacts offshore to buy and sell goods and commodities. Dick Smith couldn't have done it without people immigrants buying his goods and working in his shop.

I could spend a day on this but lets cut to the chase. You don't believe in any of this because you hate capitalism. The anti-pops are like a socio-biological virus that has infected the enviromental movement and seeks to foist its instrumentalist dictates, not through any democratic means, but by whining how bad things are and how we're all doomed. Please consider the Zimbabwe option. Your farm is waiting for you.

Just back from a trip to Japan; Population 127 Million. Saw some beatuiful wilderness areas, some vibrant cities, wonderful cultural sites, beautiful friendly people & brilliant public transport to boot.

The Australian environmental ethos; "This country is full & the environment is at constant perril because we are here at all" seems ridiculous in the face of a nation like Japan(the Japanese even have the sense to utilise free range organic whale meat).

Just one question for those who think people are a massive problem for the Australian continent. Why do you (& your family) have a right to be here? Think about that.

All the ideas in Mark O'connors article are predicated on a value system that says human population and land uses are bad, while anything else is good. But where does this philosphy lead? Will we have to rid the whole planet of humans?

Sustainability doesn't mean "without people"... it's about BALANCING VALUES

@cheryl to be anti population growth is not inconsistent with capitalism.
A thriving community needs a particular critical mass to remain thriving.
If you are below that critical mass you struggle but if you go above that critical mass you do not keep improving, on the contrary your society/economy goes backwards.
The critical mass is not a fixed number, the actual number will depend on a range of variables. We live in what is effectively a desert - as long as we are able to produce domestically what people need to have what they believe to be a good lifestyle then our numbers are OK. The reality is that we are currently already net importers of a number of goods on which our society depends hence we are already vulnerable.
If you want capitalism to survive then curbing population growth is an essential first step.

Thanks Baygon for your comments. Go back and look over these comments and others on OLO over the last year or so. The one, ineluctable, irreducable fact hawked by the anti-populationists is their anti-capitalist, anti-growth rant. I've read Clive Hamilton too.

We've been importing goods we both want and need for 150 years. it's called trade. Right now we're exporting $43 Billion per year in food and importing $6 Billion mainly in wine and dairy from NZ and Sth America.

What I'm suggesting is exporting the anti-populationists to Zimbabwe. It's reasonable. Do you think Mugabe would take 30 or 40 bearded gnomes?