Curious, why aren't the 'sustainable population' spruikers crowing about Adelaide's success in achieving a decreasing and ageing population of old Ozzies :)

Andras Smith,
You’ve made some very sensible and sobering comments that hopefully the “anti-pops” shall take heed of.
On the other hand I’m concerned that several contributors here imply that racism, nationalism, supremacism, paranoia, etc. are all that lies beneath the “anti-pops” agenda—just as those who are not “denialists” are often painted as “alarmists,” or greens are diagnosed in much the same way as women were once deemed hysterics. The problem is that what might be complex and subtle debates are reduced to the level of ignorant populism, with one sided criticising our whole way of life and the other defending it, neither being prepared to consider the full implications.
Pertinent as your comments are apropos the “eugenics” etc. agenda of nationalists, there’s no hint of a deeper critique in your own comments, which impute to our global economic institution the inevitable context of the debate—the master which must ultimately be served. This is the same pretext of the article, and indeed the rationale that brings all sides (more or less) together: “it’s the economy, stupid!”
We have the likes of Dick Smith claiming we "can” prosper without population growth (profiting from growth offshore—as if we were separate and self-sufficient planets), and the neoliberal cohort treating the planet like a magic pudding; both sides favouring an “economic solution”.
My argument is that capitalism is the problem and can never be the solution—except by dismantling it. (According to popular logic this of course makes me an unhinged radical).

I’m concerned thus only concerned here not to be conflated with the “anti-pops,” nor indeed with the weighty deliberations of either (popular) side of this bipolar debate--which we might liken to that other debate between the warring factions of Lillyput and Blefuscu.

Sorry the above was intended elsewhere.