Saltpetre,

I don't suggest "we olds should all top ourselves", though I am for voluntary euthanasia and modest lifestyles. I've tried to explain why, imo, nothing changes despite the awareness of many, on many issues, that matters are unfair and unsustainable and must change. We have to come to the realisation that we currently have no control over our "progress", and that despite all the talk (idealism), economic growth is prioritised and prevails over all else. The trouble with idealism and reformism is they continue to foster the delusion that we can continue in the growth paradigm, pulling rabbits out of hats. The worst effect, in a popular democracy, is that a majority is sufficiently heartened by the false optimism of an influential few (AGW is another example) and the ideological centre continues to hold.
I don't say "that the status quo is all that is possible", but that it can only be successfully undermined when influential people see that it is fundamentally untenable, publically table their uncompromising criticisms, and call for radical change.
Ralph Bennett, you illustrate this argument in that you recommend a halt to population growth "within" the current dispensation, failing to see the symbiotic relationship between economic and material growth--a global addiction. Failing to see that a stable population on this vast continent, within a global growth paradigm, however desirable, is geo-political suicide. Failing to take cognisance too that despite all the talk on the fringes about population stabilisation, it's government policy and a projected fact that Australia's population will nearly double in a few decades. And indeed the prevailing logic (based on prevailing dynamics) is correctly that it "must"!
No I don't have a solution, Saltpetre, apart from seeing through the idealism and telling it how it is. We have plenty of gurus spinning lies, we need a few telling the truth!

Squeers,

You are just recycling "yellow peril" arguments. Modern states are defended (at least from external enemies) by technology, not numbers. Just consider the case of Israel, which has survived for more than 60 years, despite being vastly outnumbered by hostile neighbours. On the other hand, densely populated countries have still been invaded, even big densely populated countries such as China and Indonesia. If we came under any real threat, I suspect that we would be able to have nuclear weapons (or some horrific chemical and biological weapons) in a few months. This begs the point of why other countries would want to invade us when it is easier and cheaper to just trade for what they want. A small, rich united population is in a far better position to defend itself than a large, poor divided one.

High population growth is being pushed, not by far-sighted statesmen trying to defend us, but by tools of the corporate elite. There is no question that it is good for the folk at the top. They get bigger domestic markets, easy profits from real estate speculation and control of other vital resources, and a cheap, compliant work force. If the growth is coming from immigration, they can also avoid having to train their skilled workets. Furthermore, they are insulated by their wealth from most of the downside. They can afford to live in green, pleasant, and uncrowded gated communities, and to pay for private healthcare, education, etc. If the population growth is great for ordinary people, then why has the median wage in the US been stagnant since 1973? Why did the 2006 Productivity Commission report here indicate that any per capita economic benefits are trivial?

(cont'd)

cont'd

The 2011 Productivity Commission annual report also says:

"Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite
mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that:
* immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth
* immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing"

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/113410/02-annual-report-2010-11-chapter-1.pdf

The effects on the environment, housing costs, and amenity from high population growth are almost uniformly negative, not to mention our future security in the light of resource shortages, such as phosphate rock (on which China has an export tariff of more than 100% to keep it at home), and a possible hit from climate change. I second Ralph Bennett's advice to vote for the Stable Population Party and would add some advice to put the incumbent member last, unless he/she is one of the very few who understand the real issues and are on our side, such as Kelvin Thomson.

Divergence,
that's amusing that I'm invoking the yellow peril : )
You clearly haven't followed my argument, according to which stable population means economic stagnation, unless you export population growth (sell stuff overseas, which is precisely what modern neo-fascism, deluded as ever, is all about. The nationalists want to preserve their earthly paradise and get rich providing the resources for expansion elsewhere. That's why I've said above that it would only be ethically supportable (but impracticable) if we became self-sufficient (closed), and only pragmatically viable if a coalition of powerful countries supported each other in the resolution, or it was global (and that would be the end of capitalism).
Economic growth feeds off material/population/infrastructure/consumption growth "somewhere", and it's all the same planet. It's the height of hypocrisy expecting to get rich off the back of material degradation elsewhere--exporting pollution, overpopulation etc. Even if we are unscrupulous enough to fund our Brigadoon in this way (and clearly we are), it shares the same atmosphere and oceans and we'd just be polluting it vicariously, via surrogate nations. Australia's wealth is the product of domestic consumption and international trade--cut back on either of those and we couldn't afford to defend ourselves. Western lifestyles are unsupportable without economic growth that far exceeds our ability to generate domestically.
I agree completely with your second paragraph, and indeed I'm absolutely for the "idea" of stable and sustainable populations. But I'm wearing realist glasses, as opposed to idealistic ones, and it can't happen under the current global dispensation, any more than a duck can lay golden eggs
Propagating this nonsense is an idealistic diversion for the credulous, while the real world gets on with the business of perpetual development and grooming of new markets.
Idealism is the heedlessness of ruin.

Dear Squeers,

If you look over my previous posts to you, I have replied to every query of how things will change and the kindest way of organising this change so that the greater good is acheived by all. Including the other species which "share" the planet with us.

You state that "stable population means economic stagnation". That has been previously answered.

It may be easier to comprehend two families or individuals trading between themselves from different parts of the world. They will still buy and sell, even though they may have two children and their family or individual unit, is stabilised in numbers of members.

Now The World is made up of of all these small units joined together.

It is just that market share "fights", are contained within a stable population, rather than in an increasing, unsustainable one.
You can have new products and vibrancy with stable numbers.

In fact the investment capital for innovative products is increased with a stable population, as it is diverted away from providing growth infrastucture.

Cheers,

Ralph

Oh dear, Ralph, that's a bit shabby; how about quoting the whole sentence. I said "stable population means economic stagnation, unless you export population growth (sell stuff overseas...", So you go on to lecture me over a position I don't take. In fact I'm agreeing with you in spirit, except the party is spoiled by the profit motive and the reality that capitalism is geared to maximum profit based on superfluity rather than dedicated commodity production or efficiency.
But I don't propose to argue any longer; it's you who is uncomprehending.
Even supposing we grant your idea has merit (though I maintain it would have to be based on productive surplus rather than the profit motive--which is indiscriminate and insatiable), there is absolutely no indication in the real world of it's being implemented, or even being taken seriously. Every country on the planet remains, as ever, desperate for the panacea of economic growth. And material growth, resource depletion and environmental degradation naturally entail.
I'm inspired by the dream, but meanwhile the nightmare (reality) continues.