Until we change the political systems world wide, so that equal say (not equal oportunity) is involved then nothing will change.
We in this country are now so close to being a repressed culture that I cant believe that no-one can see it.
How many politicians have you heard say "This is the ...... we need to have", how do they know I wasnt asked.
Tell me the last time you heard a company say "We can reduce the price because we have enough money now", my pockets are only so deep but theirs seem over flowing.
Most of the big money earners are in the financial system, why is this so, they produce nothing, they give no real advancement to human rights, they restrict meaningful research and development, how did MONEY become so IMPORTANT, is it because of greed, the want of ever more and more.
Big business are not much different.
All they see is that they have to gather money, more and more of it, what for, so that they can sell more shares on the stock market, another institution that does nothing for human advancement.
But they all have one idea that is sure to work, increase the population so they can make more money, like the song in the movie 'Cabaret' says "money makes the world go round" but only if you have it.
If money was cheap or not at all where would we be, better technology,better human rights even the Animal activists might be happier (if that is possible).
What are we going to leave our future generation,as slaves to the people with everything intead of being equal. The longer and larger we become as a population we must change to equality as the operating system but this will not happen with the all powerful MONEY to worship

Saltpetre, 'twas an expression of admiration for the great post I'd just read.

It was why I was prompted to offer one simple solution which might satisfy all of us.

Regards.

Who is going to rationally and deliberately plan the distribution?
Who is going to determine what society needs?
Who is going to organise to produce and develope what is needed?

They tried to do all these things in the communist system with disastrous consequences.

Yes, there is a yearning for collective action. There is a vague idea that competion as we undertand it is not sustainable, and cooperation is better.

How to achieve this without coercion,(which is unacceptable), is to redefine what it is to be human. This may have far reaching repercussions, while retaining independence of thought and action that is so vital to our existence.

Istvan, valid questions. Thank you for showing my description might imply mushrooming 'new towns' populated by 'relocated' citizens. I didn't intend that, as a libertarian wouldn't want it and as an Australian citizen I know it won't happen in our democracy. Should have said, "equivalent to a city of 150,000" and not bothered to mention anything about distribution.

I was trying to find a way of easily establishing a target for growth in population, which is near term, incremental and based on what we've shown we can support without reducing our existing 'standards of living'.

Everything would continue exactly as it is now with all levels of government, private enterprise, entrepreneurs, trades and businesses continuing to provide essential and other infrastructure and services. Doing whatever it is they do and however and wherever they do it. No change, no coercion.

Maybe this will describe the idea better – if in the last 12 months our population increased 1%, but the number of available hospital beds didn't, then we have a simple measure that, in terms of hospital beds, the nation is slightly worse off. Whether there were enough hospital beds in the first place is a separate issue with which government and private enterprise has to deal, however they do so now.

Applying this concept to a handful of measures – suppliable water, generated power, housing stock, schools and hospitals – would yield a percentage for population increase based on 'already' increased infrastructure. Everyone gets on with their lives unchanged. We may not be better off for such a population increase, but at least we would not be worse off in terms of water, power, housing, schools and hospitals.

Currently population growth is tinkered with at government whim. Australia has the good luck to be able to control our rate of population increase through immigration levels. The idea I'm suggesting would only be coercive on government and is limited to an annual target figure.

And, as you so clearly say, "Each of us would retain our independence of thought and action that is so vital to our existence".

Wm Trevor and Istvan,

You have both raised serious questions, in a serious response to this issue. In my previous posts, although generally of serious intent, I have been very broad-brush. I will try to do better here, though my position on this issue is rather severe - as I really think the current world situation is rapidly becoming untenable, and that urgent and stern action is required to avoid a very substantial crisis.

Although I agree with the concept of pre-preparation for future Oz immigration intakes, my position at this time is that immigration be strictly limited to essential skilled labour only, and then only when proven essential on a national interest basis, and not just on an individual industry or business basis - because, world overpopulation and world largesse are major and pressing problems of ill-appreciated magnitude, and any Oz facilitation of a continuation of these problems should therefore be seriously resisted. (This also means getting very tough on refugee status approval, unfortunately.)

I am fully satisfied that global warming, overpopulation and materialistic largesse are co-conspiratorial components of a looming resource crisis of such extent and impact that errors will almost be unavoidable, and the consequences of which could be devastating - in terms of starving millions, of unprecedented conflict on a local and possibly international scale, and of potential environmental degradation of near catastrophic and irrecoverable proportion.

Doomsday? Not if appropriate and very serious preemptive action is commenced in proper time.
TBC>

Wm Trevor and Istvan, (Continued:)

Consider: There are repressed millions surviving just short of starvation, many thousands surviving only on handouts from the
West, and thousands simply dying of starvation. At the same time, Prada is being floated on the Hong Kong exchange, and expected to be valued at $B11-13 - a manufacturer of luxury goods catering to the vanities of the rich, vain, self-centred and totally unconcerned glitterati. Where can one find justice or justification in this biploar scenario?

At this same time, the instigators of the global financial crisis are continuing to receive millions in salaries and bonuses, quite unperturbed.

In the Congo thousands are in virtual slave labour to supply diamonds to western vanity, and which enable warlords to buy weaponry by which they remain immune from intervention by their national government.

Idiots are consuming millions of shark's fins - at tremendous waste of real food, and damage to the marine ecosystem - although it has no food value, and whose consumption is probably based on a cultural tradition which probably dates from a time when it was actually difficult to catch a shark. The same probably applies to the use of ivory and rhino horn, tiger penis and bear bile. What kind of a world are we living in, and what kind of world do we want? Moreover, when are the ordinary people going to demand it? Is the revolution for justice in the middle-east going to stop there? How well is the West responding to that current crisis, and what may the future hold.

Many questions, very few simple or palatable answers. Real justice must be addressed, and if it is left to China, I dread to imagine how that would turn out. Is it time to place the real cost of vanity and largesse in proper perspective?

Could reigning in western (and Eastern) largesse provide the breathing space necessary? Who, and how, remain in question. Could the real UN please stand up!