Yabby,
You're quite right, virtual commodities and communication technology, for instance, does make money without, prima facie, the same material impacts. But there are many contingent materialisms in the production and consumption phases, and in any case the industry, what Fredric Jameson has called a "spacial" dialectical phase of late capitalism, is relatively small potatoes.
Even if we are, as Cheryl says, at the threshold of amazing discoveries in food generation and new energy sources, but I doubt it, a) I balk at the ethical and ecological price of these developments; and b) these technologies could be developed via more sustainable means and efficient methodologies than the clear-felling of creative destruction.
For the record, I agree the baby bonus should be scrapped, and if I had my time again, two kids would have been the limit. Education's the answer.
Popnperish: "I'm a woman and it shames me that another woman (you) [Cheryl] is so aggressive and offensive. Why don't you play the ball and not the man?"
I think you might have stumbled upon something here; "Cheryl's" posts are so characteristically male”, I'm nearly persuaded she's male, or else butch. It shouldn't matter of course, but then the females on OLO, even when their ire is up, rarely descend to the level us men (and Cheryl) are sometimes prone to. And since, at least in my experience, the ladies do comport themselves in a more gentlemanly manner than many of the men, if Cheryl is in fact a man she is misrepresenting and demeaning gendered argument.
Male or female, Cheryl, you have not answered my question or indeed said anything noteworthy, or worthy of your ostensible sex.
GregaryB,
Despite your defence of Dick Smith and his more "mature outlook", I haven't heard of him saying anything critical about the economic system, within which he's a capitalist, and its natural limits? Thus it's the same problem I have with Tim Flannery; they push their particular barrows but don't address the larger context they are complicit in.

Pericles,
be as precious as you like mate, I can't be bothered with you either.

Cheryl is actually Malcolm King, who encourages more foreign students.

Although this may increase the bank accounts of a small number of academics in Australia, it is dubious that it does much for anyone else, as the public have to pay for the infrastructure to have the extra foreign students in the country.

Also training so many foreign students may now be training the opposition.

It is an alarming situation when real estate developers and university academics are the main supporters of increasing the population.

There is minimal on the horizon to increase food production.

Most soil on farms simply holds up the plant, while fertilizer makes the plant grow.

As well as peak oil, there is a likelihood of “peak fertilizer”, as so much fertilizer once applied to the land is now in the sea.

In all, it is environmentally, socially and economically stupid to increase the population in this country.

Nice one Squeers.

>>Even if we are, as Cheryl says, at the threshold of amazing discoveries in food generation and new energy sources, but I doubt it, a) I balk at the ethical and ecological price of these developments; and b) these technologies could be developed via more sustainable means and efficient methodologies than the clear-felling of creative destruction.<<

You write about "balking at the ethical and ecological price of these developments" with - presumably - a straight face.

And then tell me, that I'm the one being precious...?

>>Pericles, be as precious as you like mate, I can't be bothered with you either.<<

No-one, it seems, can "be bothered" to do anything more than pontificate about population management. They all, without exception, back off when asked precisely how they believe it can be achieved. Especially in a democracy that purports to value freedom of the individual.

A "benevolent" dictatorship appears to be their baseline assumption. A dictatorship, moreover, where their, and only their, particular whims and fancies are indulged.

Precious, indeed.

Pericles I had thought by now that it is clear how a stable population can be achieved - indeed most of us opposed to population growth have been saying it quite consistently - stop migration.
The natural growth rate of our population is slightly under replacement level - the only reason our population is growing is because we have become addicted to migration as a "cheap' fix to shortcomings in our policy making process.
Nor is opposing migration a denial of the value of multiculturalism. Rather it is a rejection of a government policy that is still locked in the mode of populate or perish - when that policy now has come to mean populate and perish.

*and in any case the industry, what Fredric Jameson has called a "spacial" dialectical phase of late capitalism, is relatively small potatoes*

Small potatoes Squeers? How much do you think Google earns a year?
Facebook came from nowhere, to be valued at 50 billion $.
We have yet to hear of a value on Twitter. Zynga has millions
playing farm games and people actually pay for virtual goods!

The apps market alone is worth many billions and growing fast.
I'll be happy to stop buying many kg of newspapers a week and
downloading the lot, saving x trees.

This is just one example of services and how they can generate
economic growth, without much environmental impact and in the
process make our lives more enjoyable.

*They all, without exception, back off when asked precisely how they believe it can be achieved.*

Oh that is quite easy, Pericles. Firstly provide all women in
the third world with the same family planning options as we in
the West, take for granted. Secondly make people in the West pay
for their own kids. Capitalism is a wonderful contraceptive.

Well thanks for the indulgence, Pericles, you are a stubborn sod. But lest we come across as a couple of prima donnas, I won't compete with you over who's the most precious.
"No-one, it seems, can "be bothered" to do anything more than pontificate about population management".They all, without exception, back off when asked precisely how they believe it can be achieved. Especially in a democracy that purports to value freedom of the individual".
I agree! I've been saying population management is pure fantasy in the circumstances, you have to attack the root etc., and I don't get any takers either. And I agree it goes against these ideals of freedom, though that's an empty and patronising ideology. I believe in freedom, but this isn't it.
Now I do my share of pontificating on the evils of capitalism its true, and without saying how we bring it down, or offering alternatives. Though in my own defence, first I have to persuade people there's a problem, and that its ok to criticise the system--that it's not a divine dispensation, and that being critical doesn't make you a Stalinist mass-murderer. The prevailing mindset in these post-Cold War days is that there is no alternative to capitalism. I have books arguing this thesis and singing the praises of capitalism! Great for the neoliberals, in fact manufactured by them, but it's crap! If there's no alternative to capitalism, there's no alternative to the degradation and disparity it drives, and no alternative to comprehensive collapse. I want to talk about alternatives, but first I have to get through the cavity-brick wall I keep hitting, what Blake called mind-forged manacles.

But I apologise for being a crushing bore--I feel it! And I shall look for new ways to persuade, without stooping to rhetoric (too much).
I also look forward to being shown to be wrong---only way to learn. I like humble pie!