For a society to be viable it is not necessary that all members of it reproduce. It is only necessary that sufficient young are produced. Social insects such as bees and ants have only one mother at a time producing all the individuals necessary.

In fact one way our problem of uncontrolled population growth could be addressed would be for some individuals not to have children and others to have many children. I think that would be a better solution than the Chinese idea of one child per family where the result is in some cases to have a spoiled, self-centred brat. It is healthier to grow up with siblings than to be an only child. That is my opinion as an only child.

I favour methods of contraception being readily available, education for women so they may have other means of support than being a wife and mother and respect for those individuals who choose not to be parents. I think our prime minister who decided to devote herself to politics rather than child-bearing is an excellent role model.

I am not sure if this is satire. Why does the State have to involve itself in matchmaking? There are already private businesses out there doing just that and it is nothing to do with the State unless you are proposing some interest because of the focus on economic growth; or reducing overall costs of psychiatric care should life not go the way one desires.

If it is true that our DNA propels us toward reproduction, it is not always so that it has to involve a man and a woman. If a partner cannot be found many are going to sperm donors. Men are going to India to find 'incubators'.

The Prime Minister is no more a good role model than a person who decides to have children. The fact is both are possible it depends on what you want. The idea that anyone can have everything and do it all well is a bit of a modern day furphy.

Sometimes things don't work out, no point dwelling on what could not be got. Either get on with getting it or find another occupation.

Dear Pelican,

I agree. The prime minister is no more a good role model than a woman who has decided to have children. They are both good role models since they are both doing something worthwhile.

I had a Lib pollie in mind. He denigrated Gillard for being 'barren'.

Brian your DNA is in real trouble, having lost control.

Having developed a model where the whole herd, school, flock or tribe took over the nurturing at a reasonably early stage, it had written serial monogamy into our genes. Children would have a procession of "fathers" without disadvantage. Thus a greater mixing of genes improved DNA's prospect for survival.

In our more modern society this does not work too well. Our elites have bashed the idea of full monogamy into our heads, using things like religion, & social pressures, but the DNA is stronger.

Today it has trained ladies in particular to like full monogamy for their men, thus securing their provider, but likes them to add a bit of "foreign" gene from time to time, for hybrid vigor.

The easy going men have accepted their training by these ladies, & happily provide these foreign genes when requested, bringing down the wrath of the elites upon their head.

This clash of titans is causing many problems, leading to many young getting a pretty rough ride, not helping DNA's great scheme at all.

David f, you must admit that our prime minister is pretty damn barren, at least when it comes to having any good ideas.

Her DNA must have an ideas patrol, going round in her head weeding out any good idea that tries to take root in her brain, such as it may be.

Dear Hasbeen,

Our prime minister is a woman of virtue. Her virtue is that she is not Tony Abbott. I would trade them both in for a better prime minister which should not be hard to find. One of the tragedies of our society is that skill in winning elections or in gaining power is not positively correlated with skill in governing.