It's a pity that common sense hasn't improved along with the understanding of science and technology. Understanding something is one thing; applying the knowledge usefully is another altogether. Each generation, supposedly smarter then the previous, has got sillier and dumber.

Democracy grew up to 50 years ago – until the cultural Marxists decided enough was enough. Since then, it has been on the wane, with all indicators suggesting that it probably will not last until the end of this century. Eco-mania, multiculturalism, licensing homosexual relationships, unrealistic and unnatural ambitions of females and the feminisation of males, politicisation of police and military, self-serving, career politicians – all these things will kill off democracy.

Nothing like that has happened before. Doesn't mean it can't, but like our better angels, suppressed by those currently in power.

We don't have to pay more tax, just that everyone within their means pays their share of a communities burden. And goes for families large and small.

The interests of struggling families and others are better protected by raising the threshold plus a flat tax rate everyone pays. The latter eliminating bracket creep, all current avoidance and tax compliance costs.

A 15% flat tax minus average compliance costs,
would return around 7% to the average business bottom line, which would mean an effective tax rate of just 8% for business.

The best way to stop the use of coal is to offer something vastly cheaper, that industry will prefer! That something is, Thorium cheaper than coal and demonstrably so.

Yes the demonstration was a long, long time ago and we'd have been further along but for a clearly corrupt President, pulling the funding plug.

The fact that thorium is carbon free does not detract from its ability to outperform coal and hydro economically! Neither of which can claim a potential $00.1.98 PKH as the median. (economist Robert Hargreaves)

In an land a dry as this one, all our effluent needs to go inland and to essential agriculture. But only after producing our entire industrial and domestic gas needs. It can be done, but particularly with $00.1,98 PKH, which will insure it can.

Special vested interest politically active to see it'll never ever happen. And to hell with the economy and the Australian people?

Were this not demonstrably so, things would be very different, instead of suppressed or verboten.
Alan B.

Population control is the start of oppression. Other solutions are needed to be explored, before we succumb to that option.

Not_Now.Soon: How is net zero immigration, for example 70,000 out and then 70,000 can come in, and no tax benefits for more than two children born after say 1 January 2019, the start of oppression?

We need to pursue the other options as well as trying to stabilise the population, if we truly want to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren.

Right now we have a government that is aggressively trying to increase population with the support of the opposition and the greens. Just being less aggressive would be a start, and nothing even close to oppression.

To Ericc.

The article counted China's one child policy as a success. But I don't know the success it had. I know that after the policy, girls became abandoned as babies because parents wanted a son. And because of this both international adoption of Chinese daughters grew, as well as a distorted population of more men then women. The effects of the policy I think are less then successful.

Immigration control, that's one thing. So perhaps I should have rephrased my wording. Population control through policies that restrict the family size will have oppressive effects, and should not be supported. If nothing else it might increase abortion rates due to those wanting to have at least one boy.

I think teaching responsible family sizes is better then laws to enforce family size. Change the culture and the laws won't have to be made to harm liberties.

Not_Now.Soon

When the one child policy is viewed through the lens of a country like Australia it seems very cruel. When it is viewed through the poverty and oppression that was daily life in China in 1978 it can be seen as an important improvement in the lifestyle of the average Chinese person.

The poverty level in China has decreased from over 60% to less than 3% today ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China ). Without the "one-child" policy (it never really was a one child policy) there probably would have been 400 million more people in China today, much worse pollution and no where near the economic growth and prosperity.

We don't want to have to do something as drastic as the one child policy in Australia and we don't have to. I don't see changing the tax and welfare laws as "Laws to enforce family size." You can still have as many children as you want, you just don't get a tax deduction.

If we stay on the same high population course worldwide, that we are on now, we will have a much more pollution, more refugees, more congestion, higher prices for food and energy, worse soils, fewer natural areas and fewer wild animals. Stabilising the population isn't the only thing we need to do but it is absolutely critical or we won't be able to sort out the rest.

Homo Sapiens population reduction and control is the only way we can ever save ourselves and the other species we share this planet with.
As many have stated there is no planet B.
Homo Sapiens is the only species actively engaged in destroying its own Environment for its own selfish greed.

There are natural laws on this planet, if some countries, think they can overpopulate their environment, nature will cull those populations, through poverty, wars over control of lands and territorial resources, droughts through deforestration . Lack of disease free water, as in India where
the poor which are in the millions use the rivers and waterways for bathing, washing,and everything else.
The millions we are seeing now in refugee camps are the result of poverty, war and famine and no rain. All the consequences of outbreeding your resources.
Humans seem to think they can step outside the natural laws but this is only to certain limits

«There is no doubt that the human race has improved in its understanding of science and technology»

MATERIAL science and MATERIAL technology, only.

«Are we more ethical than in past generations? Do we care as much about our fellow man? Do we care as much about the future of the human race?»

It's hard to tell, but what has the third question to do with the first two? Caring for the already-living is important, but the continued existence of the human race by pushing ever increasing number of souls into new human bodies, is not an ethical imperative nor a caring thing to do.

«Life is now so much easier in the rich world, that it should be easier to be ethical.»

No, life isn't easier, it's actually more complex. Remaining ethical despite industrial pressures, knowing right from wrong and withstanding the modern temptations is in fact more difficult.

«We don't have the pressures on us to survive like 100 or 200 years ago, when medicine and technology hadn't developed to make our lives so secure.»

Biological survival is not the epitome of life. Medicine can only help us survive medical conditions, but offers no help against the increased pressures which make living less worthwhile. As for the technology that is supposed to give us more free time, we actually are more stressed due to it and have less time as we find ourselves spending most of our time serving the technology which was supposed to serve us (including the labour we need to invest in order to purchase, then constantly replace and protect that technology). Technology is only a stopgap to survive the increased population. The overall time we have left to actually live, though spanning more years on average, has not increased.

«First nobody was allowed to vote. Monarchs ruled»

No, this came only later once population grew and cities formed. Beforehand, when everyone had sufficient space to live on, no rule was needed.

Yuyutsu
Sorry you are having such a tough life. It's hard to believe that your life is tougher than the average person 100 - 200 years ago when life expectancy was 30-40 years compared to 80 now. I'm not like you I am having a much easier life than my father, grandfather and great-grandfather had and I am very grateful for that.
I'd be surprised if there were many people who would want to change places and live 100 - 200 years ago, instead of now.

Dear Eric,

Most people would not swap the difficulties which they already got used to with unaccustomed difficulties, even if lesser.

It is tough to live a principled life. I suppose that for those who don't care, take it easy and go with the flow without questioning, life is not that tough.

The span of life ought to be measured in moments, rather than in years - how many times have you actually been aware, rather than how many times the earth revolved around the sun.

Thanks Yuyutsu

Sorry. I don't know you well enough to respond to this comment.