Amicus,

Your comment reminded me of the quote "They got the guns, but we got the numbers." Think about that from whatever perspective you like.

Surely the argument regarding immigration as a solution to the aging population could be solved by cutting the pension significantly, or perhaps increasing the age to become eligible for the pension. Or does this conflict with your "special entitlement" perspective?

Also if the population issue has been a "crisis" since the 50/60/70s then by definition it is not a crisis. Most people (with the possible exception of the young) seem to ignore the possibility of significant change for the better in technology, agriculture and energy generation. I suppose many are unable to comprehend timescales greater then their life expectancy.

Dick Smith,

Thank you for your contribution to Online Opinion.

Some time ago, at the end of the 60’s, I came across a book by Robert Ardrey, ‘The territorial alternative’.

Ardrey, having examined a wide range of animals and their territorial domains, tried to understand where the humans stood in relation to the minimum area of land needed for survival.

On reflecting about this problem, I imagined a model which, if it does not answer the question of how large a plot has to be to shelter and sustain a family, it helps to understand how crucial the land factor is.

Suppose that a family with one child survives just well on a small farm, the arrival of a second child makes things a bit tight and the birth of a third, difficult.

I stop here to make sure that the ones who enter this debate can so do without being influenced by the concept of money.

Money and economy, put together, cause much confusion in the minds of people

I have seen quite a few tourist resorts built on pristine pieces of land, and then in a few years the tourist resort was bankrupt, and destroying the natural environment to build the tourist resort was a total waste.

Perhaps this is also becoming the story of Australia.

People were once generally informed that if they worked hard they would build a better life for their children.

This is not necessarily the case, and children are now likely to die at a younger age than their parents.

Parents are also unlikely to really know their children, with many fathers only seeing their children occasionally, and mothers now sending their children off to daycare.

We are destroying the country for little human gain, and simply increasing the population will probably increase the destruction for even less human gain.

@Amicus
I have identified myself as a young Australian for this purpose...

Dick Smith recently sought "young Australians" to come forward with solutions to his population conundrum.... but he was simply looking for 'young' people who agreed with him.

I wished to emphasise in my comment that I was a) young & b) disagreed with him. In fact I don’t even agree that there is a population conundrum.

I think in this context your comments are very much unfounded, and somewhat offensive.

You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.
Perhaps you could keep your comments to the subject matter

Good on you Dean K. Gee the anti-pops went wobbly when you started to talk about energy renewal.

Skeptic "money and economy put together, cause much confusion in the minds of people."

No money and no economy cause much more confusion mate and that's what the no growth lobby want.

We're in the realm of magical thinking here if the anti-pops think we're going to junk one trillon dollars per annum worth of economy. That's their bottom line. Kiss the economy good bye and start a new paradigm. Might as well call it Kampuchea now.

Here's an ethics test for the 'no growthers'. A baby and the last seal lion pup on earth fall in to the river. Who would you swim for?

You'd go for the sea lion wouldn't you? Admit it - and the sea lion pup can swim. Jeeez.

I'm sorry Tet if I offended you. The last thing I want is a Tet Offensive.

Vanna
where do you get your life expectancy data? It's not consistent with the ABS, who estimate that life expectancy at birth is higher now than it has ever been

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3105.0.65.001