<a major part of the solution to this is to reduce world population expansion (through education, elevation of quality of life and opportunity, as well as access to family planning;>

Access to family planning is by far the most important measure, as has been demonstrated most notably in Thailand and Iran: The infrastructure cost savings achieve the other two objectives as a consequence.

http://www.unfpa.org/public/cache/offonce/home/factsheets/pid/3856;jsessionid=915E3E444AAA33988AB10F676E983C4E.jahia01

And contrary to the pop-growth cultists' repeated lie that you can only limit population growth by authoritarian measures, the reality is that it is authoritarian forces who are actively preventing the world's poor from gaining access to affordable contraception. The destitute masses are a great source of slaves, and there are many in power who do not want this resource threatened.

Cutting the fertility rate? Well, we already have a whole host of contraceptive measures; and most western countries, where women are an educated income earning demographic, use them!
Our own natural population was in decline. Until the introduction of the baby bonus; given, our entire economic growth and prospects; are entirely predicated, on a very dated economic dictum; that demands population growth as the principle core underpinning factor.
As for imposing infertility on the third world, well they could all go and tie a knot in it; [ oh the pain, mummy, daddy, anybody, how do you untie a phallic Windsor; and or, teeth marks on many a dunny door,] or, a few nuclear warheads would suffice?
Failing those knot nice, really ridiculous, risible or patently inhumane options; there is no other choice; than to do what simply has to be done; to ensure that the women of the third world, also become an educated demographic, with the same rights and income earning opportunities as their male counterparts! Rhrosty.

Here we go again: Yet another porkie about how it is well nigh impossible to reduce fertility amongst the less educated and affluent unless you hold guns to their heads, when the opposite is true. Thailand and Iran provide examples of access to affordable family planning being provided as a primary measure. It has worked quickly and been a cost effective success in both countries.

Why is fertility lower amongst the educated and affluent? Maybe it is because they can afford contraception, whereas for the poor such things are beyond their means. The fault lies with the people in power who do not want to lose their slaves.

Wikipedia: There has been a fall in the 'rate of natural increase' (but still well above the rate needed for replacement) since 1962 due to falling fertility. In 1971 the rate of natural increase was 12.7 persons per 1,000 population; a decade later it had fallen to 8.5. In 1996 the rate of natural increase fell below seven for the first time, with the downward trend continuing in the late 1990s. Population projections by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that continued low fertility, combined with the increase in deaths from an ageing population, will result in natural increase falling below zero sometime in the mid 2030s. (Already disproved>) However in 2006 the fertility rate rose to 1.81, one of the highest rate in the OECD

What this is telling me is that the bureau of statistics is just the TOOL of a Federal government intent on an immigration program that has ONE PURPOSE - TO INCREASE THE RICH V POOR DIVIDE.

There is plenty of room, outside bogus statistical crystal balling, to cut the fertility rate in Australia and NO reason at all to continue a destructive and divisive Immigration program in light of the immediate 2012 global economic prognosis. The article I linked by 17 of the world's most influential economic minds has obviously not even been looked at. The BS in the last dozen posts has been shameful and appalling. Australia is going to have to fight for its identity within the year and we are already surrounded by a bunch of mealy mouthed traitors.

I reiterate: the way to avoid loss of Australian sovereignty to Asia is not more people but 10X more energy from GEOTHERMAL sources.

And to the nut who thinks this boring. Since when is SURVIVAL (staying alive) deemed boring! Twit!

KAEP
At below 2.1 fertility, we have been below replacement for over 34 years.

Dempografix,

Australia has been slightly below replacement level fertility since 1976 (about 1.9 now), but you are wrong when you say that the population would be falling without net immigration. Natural increase added 150,000 last year. Some of this would be due to births to recent migrants, but most would be from the existing population. See the link to the Bouvier graph in my first post for the comparable situation in the US. So the population would be growing even with zero net immigration. This is because of demographic momentum. If the young adult generation is big compared to older generations, there will still be more births than deaths, even if family sizes are small. Demographic momentum will also add huge numbers globally, even if fertility rates fall to replacement level everywhere. That is why Jenny Goldie wants to encourage 1.5 child families as a temporary measure to counter this trend and get overall numbers down to the point where everyone can have a decent quality of life without trashing the environment and exterminating most of the other species.

You seem to be very concerned about the Australian fertility rate. Since natural increase is predicted to fall to zero some time in the 2030s and then go slightly negative, eventually our grandchildren or great-grandchildren are likely to want to bring the fertility rate up to replacement level again, depending on how much immigration has been going on, but why do you think that this will be a problem? Desired family size is high enough to stabilise the population, even with zero net immigration. See

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/rp41/rp41.html

This paper also discusses some of the reasons why people aren't having all the children that they say they want, such as economic insecurity due to casualisation and high housing costs. (Some of these things are clearly related to our very high immigration rate, even if it is not the only cause.) The paper also gives evidence that higher family payments can help tilt the balance towards having that extra child.