"When we can provide properly for ourselves, and can ensure similar benefit is extended to the whole of the earth's population, then we may be in a position to look at alternatives for substantially increasing our own population."

Why do we need to increase our population even if we can properly provide for ourselves and even if the rest of the world can properly provide for itself.

There are currently 22 million Australians. We do not need any more citizens than that under any circumstances! In fact we would be far better off returning to a population of perhaps 18 million.....or possibly less.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Mr Windy. I was really attempting to answer some of those who would wish us to rush headlong into increasing our population in spite of all that is needed to be done to cater properly for our current population.

If our current economic strength was put to work effectively there could be training positions and jobs created in new industries to cater for all Australians willing and able to work, but it can't happen overnight. In my view it would be short-sighted to take an expedient of importing other than absolutely essential highly qualified labour until we can get out from behind the 8-ball and produce our own. Long standing deficiencies in our education system are to blame for much of any lack of skilled and professional labour in Oz, and deficiencies in our culture are to blame for the large number of Australians on welfare simply because they can't find a job to their satisfaction or that pays better than welfare. We need to pull ourselves up from the bootstraps. Too long the lucky country, with too many lost kids (and adults) on the streets, and too much to be done to improve conditions and opportunity for our indigenous Australians. It's a disgrace. It's time to put our house in order.

In due course it is reasonably possible that the world's population will decrease, at least we should be hoping so. With all the civil strife in the world today I can't help thinking that some of those in favour of increasing our population are really thinking about, and empathising with, some of those elsewhere who are in far greater need than ourselves. Well, much as we may feel for them, we have nonetheless a priority to get our own house in order first, and it is my view that we can best help those in need elsewhere by helping them to get their houses in order as well, rather than helping them to abandon their homelands.

At least in countries like Australia, this whole population debate is simply a re-incarnation of the class war that has been waged for thousands of years between those who own or control the bulk of capital and those who don't.

With a large and growing population, those who don't own capital are forced to compete for limited jobs, consumer goods and properties. Therefore the owners of capital can dictate the prices to be paid, the wages to be paid and the amount of profit that they get to keep.

With a small and stable population it is the owners of capital that are forced to compete for workers and customers. It is therefore, to a large extent, the workers and customers that dictate the prices, wages and the profit margins for capital owners.

Whose side are you on? Who is in the majority and who will win in the end?

It's not just an internal class war, Mr Windy.

>>At least in countries like Australia, this whole population debate is simply a re-incarnation of the class war that has been waged for thousands of years between those who own or control the bulk of capital and those who don't.<<

It is a global issue. Think about it. Here's a quick rephrasing of your assertion:

"...this whole population debate is simply a re-incarnation of the colonial wars that have been waged for thousands of years between those countries who own or control the bulk of capital and those who don't"

Then look at Australia through the eyes of any African country that has experienced European colonial exploitation over the centuries.

Our internal squabbles as to whether 16 million, 22 million, 35 million or 50 million is a manageable number become pretty pointless in the global scheme of things.

A line in a recent New Statesman article by geographer Laurence Smith caught my eye:

"What if you were God, and do the ethically fair thing by converting the entire developing world's level of material consumption to that now carried out by North Americans, Europeans, Japanese and Australians today. Would you?"

Because, as he goes on to point out:

"...global consumption would rise elevenfold. It would be as if the world's population went from under seven billion to 72 billion. Where would all that meat, fish, water, energy, plastic, metal and wood come from?"

If you want the world to be "fair", then reducing consumption necessarily means "all of the people who presently consume ten times that of the average African villager".

Unless of course you believe, as most do, that we are unbelievably lucky to live where we do, and have the lifestyle that we do. We have after all, as individuals, done absolutely nothing to deserve that privilege, except our choice of birthplace.

Perhaps in the long run it will be smarter to share that good fortune a little more than we do.

Mr. Windy,
It is not a question of “whose side are you on” and “who will win”. No one will win.
Both the rich elite and the poor worker will be affected by the crash of world commodities and global warming. The trouble is, that nothing will be done about tackling this until it is too late and we are passed the tipping point and hurting badly. Then we will take notice and try to remedy the problem.
We are like drug addicts or alcoholics, hooked on our addiction to our profligate life style (Australia has the highest in the world) and we are not going to go “cold turkey” and admit our addiction till we are totally deprived.
I agree with Pericles, and would point out that the so-called aim of the developed countries is to bring the third world up to our standards but in fact we should (and will have to) reduce our standard to theirs one day.

*Perhaps in the long run it will be smarter to share that good fortune a little more than we do.*

That is all well and good Pericles. But the more we do, the
higher the population in the developing world.

Perhaps we could start by bankrolling family planning for all
women in the third world who want it and are too poor to afford
it.