This is an excellent article.

A much simpler way to comprehend the fact that humans are massively overpopulated is to review the definition of overpopulation. From Wikipedia: "where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat." How is it possible for an organism to exceed the carrying capacity? There is only one way. The organism must consume resources faster than they renew. To put it in simple terms, there must be a pile of food that the organism is eating down faster than food is added to that pile.

Humans have a huge pile of food and are eating it faster than it renews. That bulk of that "pile of food" is fossil fuels. People make the mental error of thinking that oil, coal, uranium, are not food. They are as good as food, because we must burn those resources in order to grow, harvest, package, store, and distribute food for 7 billion humans. If we do not burn those resources, we collectively have no clue how to feed 7 billion. We don't need to figure out what a sustainable population level might be, because this logic proves we are way beyond sustainable. The correct course of action is clear. We humans must get our numbers down to where we are not consuming resources, that are essential to provide for our numbers, faster than they renew. The only way to do that is to ensure we average fewer than 2 children.

Moving quickly to policies which balance emigration with immigration (or perhaps even a bit more in favour of emigration) as suggested by the likes of the Stable Population Party and the Democrats is the most practical and achievable course of action.

Immigration has been of benefit in building Australia, but now we must recognise that these policies are now doing much more harm than good. Our government and corporate citizens are understandably reluctant to move from a model that has worked to a larger extent, but we now need to move to a more sustainable population and an understanding that our economy will fail if we continue to believe that a stronger economy requires more people than we already have.

We should be looking more towards the handful of countries with about half our population who have governments that work very collaboratively and have economies that are very successful - this will allow us to also reinstate a lot of the native wildlife corridors that made this country a treasure. Whatis pertinent also about these countries is that they have not deliberately set about growing their populations but instead, have largely let their populations find their own level that affords a decent standard of living for all (and the highest quality lifestyle ratings on the planet).

One thing is clear. Australia is becoming increasingly unstable, increasingly unattractive to investors and prospective migrants and more and more of our citizens are slipping into poverty or living hand-to-mouth. For an increasing number, the prospect of owning a home is a forgotten dream. It is worth considering as is well put in Kelvin Thomson's "witches hats theory of government" that our stability depends on us slowing our population growth (predominantly driven by high immigration) and ultimately allowing our population to stabilise by encouraging Australians to make the link between finite resources and population. Given the choice and understanding along with financial and time pressures, most people will opt for smaller families in balance with career and lifestyle.

Wilfully misinterpreting an assertion twice does not make it right, if it was wrong the first time, nicco.

>>Pericles again claims that it is hypocritical for someone in comfortable circumstances to express a view about social policy.<<

That is simply burying a specific point inside a broad generalization.

I merely pointed out that the entire tenor of the piece was a typical example of baby-boomer logic: "we've created a problem that we want you to solve. And we want you to solve it by doing exactly the opposite to what we have done all our lives."

I'll repeat it for you, just in case you have forgotten:

"...this article epitomizes for me the absolute worst of Baby Boomer thinking and logic: "Do not as I have done, nor enjoy what I have enjoyed, but wear hair shirts and deny yourself everything good on this planet"."

Denying other people the right to have children is about as fundamental an example of control-freakery that you could invent. And the fact that Ms Goldie pronounces all this after having made her own comfortable nest only magnifies its expedience.

Generalize all you like, my specific point remains. And presumably Ms Goldie is not advocating that every Australian couple raise five children, as she has done. How does that fit under the heading "do as I do"?

>>Pericles is also (wilfully?) inaccurate in his use of the emotive term "one child policy", which Ms Goldie specifically rejects. She says: "I believe that a fertility rate of 1.5 is not unreasonable ..."<<

Which translates as a "one child policy for some", does it not? Otherwise it would be totally unenforceable. Which raises the obvious question, how will the rate of 1.5 be achieved? Voluntarily for some, but not for others? Who gets to choose?

I find it strange that anyone can support, let alone advocate, such policies.

A very persistent straw man. Pericles refuses to understand the point made by Ms Goldie, in fact refuses to understand several points, in order to persist with his denigration of her proposal.

Raising five (mostly adopted) children does not indicate that Ms Goldie has created "a comfortable nest", rather that she has undergone considerable sacrifice. But whatever her personal situation, it is simply impertinent for Pericles to snidely imply that she has not done, herself, what she suggests that others might do. Nor, in fact, does it matter; the proposal should be considered on its merits.

His straw man is also evident when he mentions 'control freakery'. Ms Goldie at no time suggests or implies "control" - rather that a wise parent, or a wise polity, would do well to take account of an impending period of economic and environmental decline. And as another poster (Colinsett) notes, unending growth is a mathematical impossibility.

*My maternal urges were unsatisfied, however, with just one. Only after adopting three children and long-term fostering another did I decide that my maternal urgings were at last satisfied.*

Nicco, I snipped the above from the authors article. Which raises
the interesting question wether its a sacrifice to satisfy the
"maternal urges", or rather just a reaction to genetic programming.

Individual,
The baby bonus may not have lifted the birth rate according to the paper “The contribution of increases in family benefits to Australia’s early 21st-century fertility increase: An empirical analysis”

“It finds the effects of the ‘Baby Bonus’ and the Child Care Rebate are slight. The effects of education, income, occupation, marital status, age and parity are significant.

http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol25/6/default.htm

Basically, the increase in birth numbers had more to do with the mining boom, and not the handouts from government. So the $1 billion paid out each year did not do as it was intended, and was largely a waste of taxpayer’s money.

Noted that this paper has not been questioned by any of the lobby groups that wanted the baby bonus in the first place.