Ian

You forgot Borumba Dam on the Mary River, currently at 88% and has been at 100% for the majority of the past 12 months. Didn't this fit your hypothesis? The dam with the greatest reserves is exactly where a new one should be built.

I think I smell a NIMBY.

From Banjo Patterson's 'Clancy of the Overlow"

And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended,

And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars.

The "vision splendid" is dry land.

The state of our dams – and not just in Queensland – is dismal. Ian is right to point out the absurdity of building more dams when the whole dam issue has been shown to be critically flawed.

But he examines one part of the water crisis in isolation. The building of new dams is not the only strategy being undertaken by Premier Beatty. There is a lot of effort going into the promotion of tanks and water conservation measures, along with quite severe water restrictions.

Beatty needs some commendation for this, although not without a lot of condemnation as well – for allowing the situation to get this grim, and for continuing to allow a completely unmitigated rate of population growth several years into an obvious major demand / supply crisis.

What exactly is the point of this piece? It's so badly written.

I had written him a letter which I had, for want of better knowledge, sent to Brisbane where the big-knobs dwell and wisdom reigns supreme.

And an answer came directed in a writing fully expected – two lines, implying I was dwelling in some idealistic dream.

‘Twas his spin-doctor who wrote it, and verbatim I will quote it:

(and it may as well ‘ve been written with a thumbnail dipped in tar)

“This is Queensland you silly greenie – growth is our mantra - note it,

sustainability’s a load of rubbish - just remember where you are”

In my wild idealistic fancy I dream of a chance we could live in harmony with this ancient craggy land.

But the hurrying people daunt me, and their pallid faces haunt me, and the big-knobs show nothing to suggest they understand.
.

Ludwig L (with copious apologies to ol’ Banjo)

Solving water and power problems.
I feel there is an excellent opportunity to generate a significant quantity of 'Green' power for Southern Australia by flooding Lake Eyre and using the ebb and flow of the tide to drive turbines.
Bradfield suggested that a flooded Lake Eyre would generate clouds and then rainfall across Eastern Australia. Quite a deal of research has already been done by Adelaide University but unfortunately, Lake Eyre has never been filled for sufficient time to collect rainfall data of significance. But this research shows that the preferred method of allowing seawater into Lake Eyre is through Lake Torrens from Port Augusta which only requires a channel of about 200 kms.
Some of available reports suggest that a more potent reason for flooding the lake would be in order to generate power. Now 200 kms of channel with tidal flow in and out would enable, say 40 Tidal power stations to be built at spacing of 5 kms. Coupled with this there would be many sites around the new Lake suitable for Wind Power generation. I suggest scholarships be given to PhD students to look at the proposals. If there is increased rainfall then we would have a bonus and the increased flow down Coopers Creek and Diamantina River would over time flush the excess salt out of the Lake. If the increased rainfall is not sufficient to flush out the salt, then much further down the track, we may need to look at diverting small flows into Cooper’s Creek and the Diamantina River. Cloud seeding has been effective in Tasmania and the Snowy Mountains and could assist here.
We cannot afford to neglect any possible avenue that can provide a solution.

David

I don’t believe you are thinking about this in the right way.

We need to be striving for a balance between water-provision and demand, while allowing for a very healthy excess of water reserves and supply capability to get us through the driest times. We also need to be very aware of the energy involved in developing schemes and maintaining them, especially with our energy economics rapidly changing as fuel prices rise.

Huge fandangled schemes such as flooding Lake Eyre in the vain hope that it may lead to an increase in rainfall in some areas to the east has got to be one of the hairiest ideas yet. (I mean no offence. I’m just saying it as I see it).

Bradfield was responsible for another hair-brained scheme – turning the coastal rivers of the north across the ranges to water the vast inland plains. Well gee if we’d done that, we would have been in much more strife. Huge areas would have been opened to irrigation, to the point where the resource was being overused with no buffer left for dry times, as we see in many places now across the country.

There is nothing to suggest that the same sort of expansion and over-utilisation of resources wouldn’t happen today. Afterall, we continue to have absurdly high national immigration / population growth and interstate migration, with much of it in water-stressed areas. Our expansionist ethic is just as strong as ever, despite all our recent sustainability awareness.

Big schemes done without the collective push to limit human expansion are not the answer.

Ludwick dismisses the idea of flooding Lake Eyre completely off the cuff. All I'm suggesting is that since Bradfield, there has been very little detailed scientific research to see if we cannot obtain some benefit by checking out his ideas. We cannot afford to dismiss possible solutions without having given them a detailed scientific review. All I suggest is that we give scholarships to say a dozen PhD students to consider the whole problem. If they should find in favour, then we can proceed with a feasibility study. If they are not in favour, then we will have built a body of expert knowledge which is useful for the future and that is a gain in itself. I feel we must consider every possibility and not jump to a conclusion which is not soundly based or adequately researched.

David,
the sun will have no trouble lifting a lot of water from a flooded Lake Eyre.
But, before getting too carried away in contemplation of its rainmaking prospects, there are some serious matters for consideration about keeping it filled:
What is the area of Lake Eyre.
What is the evaporation rate over that area.
What width of channel do you contemplate (its depth will be no more than about 10 metres).
What rate of flow is expected in the horizontal channel.
Do you contemplate an outgoing tide as well as an incoming tide.

Davick, I have not dismissed your idea out of hand. Let’s go right ahead and consider schemes like this (even really hair-brained ones!). But for goodness sake, not in isolation from the continuous human expansion aspects, and hence the high likelihood of any new resource being fully utilised and most probably over-utilised before very long.

The essence of my view is that we simply MUST address the continuously increasing demand side of the equation with just as strong a fervour as we address the supply side.

I’ve said it before numerous times on this forum – it just completely befuddles me as to how the governments and residents across the country fail to appreciate the enormous stupidity of continuing to increase population directly in many areas that have major water problems. It is as if there is some enormous inbuilt mental block to dealing with this issue (and many others that are connected to continuous population growth) in a balanced and hence an effective manner.

David,
And then what we do after that?
And then what we do after that when we come AGAIN to a sudden stop
The more power we produce, the more people come to Australia to fill the space.
Peter Costello is telling us to reproduce.

OK, Lets double the 20 million people we have . . . and what do we do then when we run out of power, water and food because we have put all our farmland into housing blocks . . . what do we do. We have doubled out problem because ewe have doubled the population.
Hey, in NSW we having fishing licences because the whole NSW coast is running out of fish.
And all we have then is 40 million people.
The USA has 350 million and Australia in size is about 80 percent of the size of the USA.
What we need to do is STOP, sit down and just look after what we have got . . . or we will all be broke.

OK, how do we stop people moving to SE Qld, the 1500 climate refugees who resettle here every week?

Build a big fence? Ban people selling land? Ban developers?

Maybe tell them if they come here they will have to drink their own piss? Problem is most people in Australia already drink piss, at least Toowoomba got a vote on it. I note the no case was funded by a property developer worried about land prices :)

Hey are people going to Israel or Iraq?

Ludwig and Glen Writer are way off the topic. It is obvious that Australia is very short of water and requires more ‘green’ power to help counter global warming. We have resources and must learn how to use them to our best advantage. We cannot revert to the land of the dinosaurs. The points raised by Ludwig are another matter and somewhat akin to a ‘head in the sand’ approach. Like it or not, Australia is committed to supporting an increasing population and the idea of reducing population or ceasing irrigation is just not politically feasible.
Colinsett raises a number of very relevant questions and I don’t have the expertise to provide the answers. Which is why I suggest having a number of PhD students study and evaluate all the points Colinsett raises. Once we have this research done, there will be detailed scientific data available on each question. Then, we will see if it is worth proceeding with a feasibility study to guide us towards future development. I believe we would gain by flooding Lake Eyre to generate power and to increase rainfall. I can only be shown to be right, or wrong, after a proper study of the factors. A dozen PhD students to study the problem is a minimal cost and we will have added to our knowledge about the possibilities. We will never know unless we look.

Before pointing PHD students towards Lake Eyre:
Lake Eyre North is about 144 X 77 kilometres; Lake Eyre South 64 X 24. The total area they occupy is about 9690 square kilometres.
Maximum depth 3.7 metres, and the important mean is 2 metres, below sea level.
Annual precipitation averages about 167 millimetres, but evaporation is at least 2,000 millimetres. (Evaporation nett then is about 1.8 metres).
Total contained water at maximum has been stated as 30.1 cubic kilometres.
Total annual nett evaporation loss, calculated from above, is 17.7 cubic kilometres.
Having got our basic items for consideration, then for the (200 kilometre?) channel from the sea to keep it filled, (replacing 17.7 cubic kilometres per year):
The channel flow will put into the lake 0.002 cubic kilometres each hour.
A channel depth greater than 2 metres would be superfluous.
Assumed rate of flow - adopt 1 kilometre per hour (for preliminary calculation purposes only).
Then calculated from the above data, the width of channel needed to accommodate this flow is 1.0 kilometes.
Time taken for water to travel the 200 kilometres would be 200 hours. With only 6 hours between ebb and flow of tides in the sea at the channel mouth, such tides will be of little help in pushing water towards Lake Eyre.
With the channel oriented roughly north-south, the tidal lump in the water body will vary across the channel, rather than along it, as the moon passes from east to west.
Therefore, there will be no tidal help
Then there are salt considerations.
Seawater is about 3% salt. With evaporation removing all incoming water each year, the volume of accumulated salt from it will, in about 30 years, equal what is the annual water intake. As that is about half the volume of Lake Eyre, in 60 years there will be nothing much other than 30 cubic Kilometres of very concentrated brine.
All in all, the prospects for the scheme are not great. But no worse than the prospects for a society in which population increase is fostered in perpetuity

“OK, how do we stop people moving to SE Qld, the 1500 climate refugees who resettle here every week? Build a big fence? Ban people selling land? Ban developers?”

Thanks for asking Steve.

It is a pretty fundamental right to move freely in this country. However, this is highly compromised – we can’t set up residence on public land or on someone else’s property without their permission. In fact, the choices for residence are extremely limited, all-considered.

It is also a pretty fundamental right of a community to protect its quality of life and environment, and to expect its leaders to do something about pressures and threats to it.

These rights often conflict. So a balance is required. This balance requires some slowing of, and an eventual limit to, increasing pressure in many areas. This continuously increasing pressure is wrought first and foremost by continuous population growth.

So we should expect our governments, at all levels, to regulate this influx where necessary, by way of limiting approvals for new housing developments, signing off on limits to this sort of development in strategic plans, and perhaps implementing various financial incentives that make moving into crowded or resource-stressed areas less attractive. It DOESN’T mean putting up a fence at the border and it certainly isn’t draconian.

This sort of balance, as opposed to allowing or even encouraging rapid and unending growth, should most definitely be seen as one of the core duties of governments.

And again, this population-growth-mitigation philosophy simply MUST be a major part of the water issue, and many other issues, in SEQ and several other regions and cities around the country.

Thanks colinsett
for telling us you understand statistics but don't understand anything else.
There are millions in Australia who understand statistics.
They are people with a good salary who carry around a piece of paper all their life . . . and conribute nothing to the nation.
Thanks for explaining the scheme does not work and therefore saves the environment.

David, you wrote:

“Ludwig and Glen Writer are way off the topic.”

What?! Surely you can see the connection between increasing populations and increasing pressure on water resources!

“Like it or not, Australia is committed to supporting an increasing population and the idea of reducing population …. is just not politically feasible.”

This is terrible! If you really believe this, you don’t have true sustainability at heart and seem to be just reacting to a current resource shortage without seeing the long-term view. Or perhaps you are one of those vested-interest people who want forever bigger populations to create ever-bigger markets for ever-bigger profits.

I don’t think you are somehow, although I can’t say why I feel that.

It just befuddles me that you could be so highly concerned about water-provision that “we must consider every possibility and not jump to a conclusion which is not soundly based or adequately researched”, and yet not see the bigger picture of sustainability, which necessitates balancing supply and demand, instead of blithely pandering to unending increasing demand.

Whose head is in the sand?

Colinsett provides us with a nice display of his erudition. Unfortunately, his approach is completely negative. My thought was to try and see if there is some way in which we can utilise Lake Eyre to assist in solving the water shortage. There are too may died in the wool knockers who are incapable of casting a wider net to see if there is a solution. However, several questions which he may care to address. He admits that Lake Eyre can be flooded by opening a path to the ocean, and that this will produce some 17.7 cubic kilometres of evaporation. This should produce clouds that will move across Eastern Australia.
Questions for Colinsett. How much rain will this produce? Will this be increased by cloud seeding?
What increased flow will this produce in the Cooper’s Creek and Diamantina River catchment and the Murray Darling Basin?
Will this increased flow in time wash out the excess salt in Lake Eyre?
Take into account the odd heavy rainfall which does actually flood Lake Eyre at various intervals.
If a greater flow is required, then can we divert the excess monsoon rainfall in North Queensland so as to flush out the salt over time?
Will the increased rainfall contribute to the Artesian Basin?
We must be positive and look for solutions. Which is why I suggested some bright young unbiased students should be assisted to review the problem and not leave the research to the armchair observers who already have formed a biased opinion. We will never solve the problem unless we have a fresh look at all the possibilities.

David Gothard, you say "He admits that Lake Eyre can be flooded by opening a path to the ocean--."
Hold it - I do not admit to any certainty for such flooding via the construction of any reasonable channel.
You seem to assume that geologists, soil scientists, meteorologists, mycologists, and ecologists have been sitting on their bums with no interest in the arena envisaged for your "bright young unbiased students".
Australia has a proud record of expertise in all the above departments; particularly in relation to our dessicated continent. They all were, at one time, "bright young unbiased students".
Their published work, and continuing research, has seldom provided the quick and favorable answers hoped for by politicians; so much so that they have become endangered species, and their work largely ignored in the political arena. Most of your questions have already been adequately investigated, although on-going.
Broadening the scene, I hope you don't take offence from my mention of a couple of books providing a fair appraisal of the overall picture. Both are authored by Mary White: "After the Greening", and "Running Down". They are delightfully presented distillations of much of the information pertinent to the discussion on water in Australia.
An example of unwanted research results is the CSIRO's monumental "Future Dilemmas" exercise. It was undertaken for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. It provided "Options to 2050 for Australia's population, technology, resources and environment". The options were not such as to delight the Government. The data is available to the public, but the material is avoided by the politicians. The team which provided it has been disbanded, and its expertise dissipated.
Regarding being left "high and dry", there is already a lot of information available. And much more is needed. As new material becomes available, I will accordingly adjust my opinion from what I have already obtained from across the wide spectrum available.

Collinset fails to answer any of the specific questions I posed. He appears to ooze expertise yet fails when asked for pertinent responses. Have I touched a sore point which his "Expertise" does not qualify him to answer. I am only putting forward an idea and it is up to Collnsett to provide answers. "Put up or shut up" as they say in the bush.

David, and others of like mind - I have already offended once by "putting up". It is not my intention to offend, so it is better to now "shut up" rather than "put up" more material - which you would, should it be not to your liking, rather filter out than contemplate. And you ask for six times the original dose! Rather than blow a fuse from reading a limited OLO blog on those matters, perhaps it might be more satisfying for you to chase up the readily available information for yourself.
But all of this is a side-show to the main consideration, which is the treadmill of everlasting population growth which feeds increased water consumption.
We can do much in relation to water shortages for cities and regions, but there are limits. Yes, we might reduce consumption considerably; yes we might, perhaps, be able to make more water (desalination, cloud seeding, etc.); however we can not keep that up indefinitely.
But the present, and any of the likely future governments, are hell-bent on increasing the population with no thought of pause in the future. Currently the unstated, but de-facto, policy is a rate of increase of one million each four years; from natural births plus immigration. That policy contains more voodoo faith (or uncaring) than science, in any expectation that might exist regarding water deliver improvements keeping pace with population increase - for Australia, or for regions.

It is how you look at the problem.
So there is a water shortage?
That is your own problem because of how you think.
Others like myself see no water shortage.
There is no water shoratage at all.
There is an over abundace of people.
That is the problem.
Australia has had 5000 years of Aboriginal habitation,
now white man only has 200 years here and white man runs out fo water.
Stupid white man, No?
Stupid white man, yes.

Colinsett appears to have been offended by my request for answers to several pertinent questions and it appears that I have reached well beyond his “expertise”. But then he reveals his dinosaur attitude that we should reduce our population. What a load of codswallop. We are firmly committed to a growing population and politically this idea will never wash. Almost the view of the Luddites and Malthus. A ‘stop the world, I want to get off ’ attitude. Let’s face it. We do have resources and must use our skill and intelligence to make the most of what we have got. Take a positive view old chap, come out of your ivory tower. You spiel a lot of statistical data as if you have some knowledge. Then start using it by making sense. Lake Eyre is below sea level. Water runs down hill. A channel joining the sea to Lake Eyre will inevitably fill the Lake. Q.E.D. Now start answering my queries….IF you have the knowledge?
You calculate this flooding will generate 17.7 cubic metres of evaporation. The moist air will form cloud, which will move to the East. How much rain will it cause over the Cooper’s Creek and Diamantina River head waters and the Murray Darling Basin? Using cloud seeding of course.
What flow will this produce in these river systems? Will this, plus the very infrequent natural flooding of the Lake be sufficient to flush out the salt? If this is insufficient then can we divert some of the monsoon rains from North Queensland to assist in the flushing process?
I make no claim to being skilled at such things and I rely on those who really are, to come up with practical answers to develop a positive solution to Australia’s very serious water and green power shortage.
Let’s have the benefit of your alleged ‘expert’ knowledge so we can develop a positive plan for the future. We could not go back to the age of the dinosaurs even if we wanted to

Oh David, I think your credibility is shot.

You are taking the most unbalanced view of anyone I have come across on this forum with your complete dismissal of the continuous growth issue.

Nearly everyone has indicated that they understand that the size of a population and the rate of its growth are major factors, with direct and all-powerful relevance to the subject at hand and most other subjects in the realm of environmentalism and sustainability.

You would be doing us all a much greater service if you lobbied governments to get past the notion that we must have continuous rapid expansion, instead of getting caught up on wild pie-in-the-sky distractions like filling Lake Eyre.

The bottom line has got be balance, not a facilitation of us getting forever further out of balance with our resource base. Espousing grand schemes and huge increases in the provision or resources or their more frugal / efficient use without dealing with limits to the overall scale of operations, is just self-defeating.

We cannot afford to just sit back and accept that the overall amount of pressure on resources will continue to grow. Nothing could be more defeatist than that.

Methinks you waste your energies.

Ludwig is another of the codswallop spouting retards. Like it or not and bleat as much as you will but your thesis is politically unacceptable and can never be realised. We have the resources and the intelligence and can, and will, build our Nation to accommodate a much larger population. Why not accept that we will NEVER have a policy that reduces population. We just have to use our brains and find ways to develop the necessary resources to carry the extra citizens. Or is it just your easy way out to go back to the dinosaurs?

David,
Peter Beattie has asked the public today to pray for rain.
Does that not tell you something.
He or his government are lost concerning water.
China has 1.4 billion people, and all they can come up with is 'The One Child Policy'.
We have the salt problem in the Murray/Darling basin.
Millions of years ago all land west of the Great Dividing Range was under water.
Salt will always be Australia's problem.
Something no matter the technology or the will can't be solved.
Thank God because I don't want Australia flooded with people.

Aaaaaa haa hahaha

“Codswallop spouting retards“…blah blah blither blither….

It is just the sort of response one would expect from a truly polarised individual who just cannot handle an opposing point of view nor debate it in a sensible manner.

So it seems that your bottom line really IS to actually facilitate an ever-larger population. And the notion of sustainability or balance really IS completely alien to you. Your only interest in the water–provision issue IS to actually take us further away from sustainability.

Why David do you so innately want to facilitate a larger population… and one with no upper limit?

Why do you equate the notion of stabilising population with going “back to the dinosaurs”?

Glenwriter and Ludwig obviously have closed one-track minds and their comments demonstrate this very clearly. The idea of reducing our population is politically impossible and even China has now ceased the ‘one child’ policy.
We have to accept that Australia will continue to have an ever-growing population. It is true this brings problems but we also have resources and the majority of the population has a degree of common sense. We need to face the facts and endeavour to use our brains and intelligence to find ways and means of solving our water and power problems. There is no point in attempting to turn back the clock to the time of the dinosaurs. Let’s adopt a practical approach and turn our efforts to solving the problems like intelligent individuals. My suggestion to flood Lake Eyre is one possible solution. I did not put the idea forward as “THE ANSWER” but rather I suggested it would be worth a study in case it could provide some solution. Nor I did not put forward the idea, or give support to, an ever-growing population, but I accept the fact that this is our future and we just have to live with it. Ludwig and Glen Writer are clearly ‘codswallop spouting retards’ that wish to turn back the clock. They do not appear to have the intelligence to recognise the situation and work towards a solution. How about some sensible, practical solutions towards building the inevitably growing Australia?

David

At least you have given the matter some thought.

Now I re-ask the questions:

Why do you so innately want to facilitate a larger population… and one with no upper limit, especially now that you have admitted that it “brings problems” ?

Why do you equate the notion of stabilising population with going “back to the dinosaurs”?

and…..

Why on earth do you accept that we have to have an “ever-growing population?”

Ludwig adopts the approach of King Canute who refused to accept the facts and tried to hold back the tide. Ludwig will fail just as Canute did. Maybe Ludwig will then realise that an ever-growing population is a fact of life for all communities. I do not seek to facilitate this but I do admit it brings problems. I am not so naïve as to try and “hold back the tide”. My only thought is to try and solve some of the problems. Children develop the ideas which Ludwig expresses but early in life most of them recognise that there are certain things which are built into the world and they just have to accept them. The bible tells us to “go forth and multiply” and even the proponents of a “flat earth” have had to change their views and accept the facts. Perhaps Ludwig would like to form a political party to advance his thesis, or maybe he should write to Members of Parliament so that he may get a lesson in the way the real world operates. Let’s get on with it and endeavour to find solutions to the problems we face. Putting one’s head in the sand and trying to opt out will not assist in finding solutions so let’s have some constructive ideas. No more of the dinosaur approach from codswallop spouting retards.
.

Please, David - do not try to deprive us of hope.
In the 1800 years after your God urged his faithful to "Go forth and Multiply", the then 150 million loyal members of our species did just that, and multiplied to almost 1000 million.
Then they stepped up the pace, to increase by 0.6 billion in the space of just 100 years.
Then, into overdrive - increasing by 0.8 billion in just 50 years.
No slackers in their task, during the last half century they added another 4 billion to the total.
In a world designed by your God for about 150 million, it is now showing signs of stress from 6.5 billion. In a globalised world, apart from the local stresses, we can not entirely divorce ourselves from those across the planet.
If our environment would permit it, and we carried on business as usual with present population increase at 1.3 per cent each year, our 6.5 billion would double to 13 billion in about 54 years, and continue rising to about 2000 billion in 500 years.
Contemplating continuous increase as a necessity is a philosophy without hope for our future.
But I have hope. It springs from the possibility that we will take notice of that other parable, "God helps those who helps themselves, and take whatever civilised steps are needed to limit populations.
A cool wash of reality is needed to prevent evaporation of hope by the heat of unsound dreams - for human society in general as much as for its need for water.

Colinsett I admire your display of erudition(?) in the figures you dredge up. But so what? Going on your data, it seems the population has been growing steadily for far more than 2000 years. Seems to be well entrenched in our system. (In passing SHE is not my God. I grew out of that years ago). But how do you propose to reverse the system? Do a King Canute and command the tide to turn back? I am not interested in your feeble, juvenile, ir-relevant bleating and prefer to accept reality. There is no way the trend can be reversed and we all have to endeavour to find ways and means of using our intelligence and solving the problems which results from the inevitable increasing population. How about a practical, sensible, contribution rather than spouting ir-relevant statistics. A positive rather than a negative approach would be welcomed but your bigoted attitude seems to blot out any possible ideas of a sensible and practical nature to solve the inevitable problems. Even your statistics show your argument is fallacious almost before you display them. King Canute learnt this lesson and he didn’t have those ir-relevant statistics to rely upon.

David the crux of your dilemma seems to be that you do not seek to facilitate an ever-growing population, but that this is exactly what you are doing. And the more successful you are with your huge water-provision schemes, cloud-seeding and other ideas, the more you will be doing it.

You say that population growth brings problems and that you don’t particularly want to encourage it…… but you are doing just that, by addressing one side of the equation only, and dismissing the other side as completely uninfluencable.

Some of your ideas have some merit, and you must be commended for getting on this forum and expressing them. But for goodness sake, you fall down terribly in your complete intolerance of those who are concerned about the other side of the equation. This makes for a very unbalanced approach.

Surely you can appreciate the magnitude of population size and rate of increase, and rate of acceleration through the twentieth century – and the enormous part that this plays in all sorts of resource-supply issues. Surely you have got be able to see that the population issue is the most important one of all that we need to address.

As far as political action on population growth in Australia – it has been about as successful as improving our water woes. There has been absolutely minimal achievement. However, the voices of discontent are murmuring away, in an ever-stronger manner, especially in relation to the rapid population growth in southeast Queensland and Sydney while they have worsening water crises. There is as much chance of political action ensuing on population growth mitigation as there is on really significant water-conservation and provision measures. Both are needed, and it is completely nonsensical to do only one or the other. Premier Beatty for one knows this and does express concern from time to time. And ex-premier Carr was not at all shy in expressing concern about population growth in Sydney.

The issue is politically unpalatable at the moment. But the time for political realisation and significant action draws near.

David Gothard believes that all regions, nations, everywhere are constantly increasing their populations.

In fact only the English speaking states of the first world are increasing their populations. In western Continental Europe population natural increase spontaneously reduced and immigration was reduced by government policy in all states of the EEC in 1973-4. (Reaction ot first Oil Shock) European rates of population growth are in the region of 0.3 and lower. Australia's growth rate is the world average at 2.1.

Continental Europe could rein back demographic growth when it saw that resources were getting tight because they are not ruled by the housing lobby as Australia, the USA and Canada are (along with Britain, which is the seat of private property and land speculation.)

Mr Gothard, you have been brainwashed. People used to talk that way about slavery, saying it just had to be; it was negative to talk about stopping it.

I would like to know where you learned to believe that we had to put up with endless growth. It is my life-long quest to understand why Australians not only put up with this demographic dictatorship but that they actually advocate their own oppression.

Ludwig, Collinset, Kanga and Glen Writer still follow the King Canute approach by advocating a reversal of the inevitable growth of population which has been a consistent feature for well over 2000 years and will continue for another 2000 years. There is little point in trying to convince such codswallop spouting retards of the facts of life. I can only suggest these mid-guided individuals should form a political party and see how much support they get. I am minded to recall the individual who campaigned in Canberra many years ago with a policy of grazing goats and putting beehives on Black Mountain so as to make the A.C.T. into a land of milk and honey. The party scored just two votes and lost their deposit. The King Canute party would do just as well. I refuse to waste my time and debate further with such bigoted and biased individuals. There are none so blind as those who will not see. When the Canutians appreciate the need to use their intelligence (?) to solve the problems increasing population brings, then it will be the time to work together for the good of Australia. Q.E.D.

“I refuse to waste my time and debate further with such bigoted and biased individuals.”

But you are not debating with anyone David.

You have shown a couple of things rather comprehensively:

That you can be really nasty and that tact and decency mean nothing to you, and that you can repeat yourself without adding anything to the debate but rather, skirt around the issues, even when asked direct questions.

How about furthering the debate a bit by answering my questions directly….please:

Why do you so innately want to facilitate a larger population… and one with no upper limit, especially now that you have admitted that it “brings problems” ?

Why do you equate the notion of stabilising population with going “back to the dinosaurs”?

Why on earth do you accept that we have to have an “ever-growing population?”

Come on – this issue is of paramount importance to the subject of this thread. Let’s get into the guts of it….. in a nice friendly manner.

No David, you do me great injustice.
You distort my facts and my opinion.
I advocate the destruction of all Mankind.
Only then will the planet have enough fresh water.

The last post for David Gothard?
I offer this last post for humanity:
I note that King Canute has had a bad press. He did nothing more than pull some of his dreamers into line. When they suggested that he was all-powerful, he dragged them down to the seashore to watch the result of his now-famous commandment.
I further note that, if human population growth continues for another 2000 years, unsurprisingly it will get somewhat more out of hand than it already is. Solutions will have to be found to cater for the following numbers which will have multiplied from the present breeding stock. Present rate of increase is assumed.
Present numbers are about 6.5 billion.
In 100 years, about 25 billion.
In 1000, years 1,600 billion.
In 2000 years of continuing "progress", 900,000,000,000 billion.

Glen Writer, Collinset, Ludwig, Kanga. Did not intend to respond further and caste more pearls of wisdom before Canutian swine. But Glen’s comments scream out for a response. Have no worries Glen. The Americans are already well down the path you suggest and with all their chicanery and sophisticated technology will reduce world population fairly quickly. Perhaps the smart (?) ‘numerologist’ Colinsett could play with the figures to predict and reveal the end point. Play on little boys. Messages end for good.

David – would you really rather opt right out of the discussion than involve yourself in debate on something that you obviously feel very strongly about??

Why not just answer one of my questions, then ask one of your own, and we’ll get into the rhythm of a worthwhile intercourse.

You have expressed grand ideas. You are into big issues. This is too big an issue for you to pull out of.

At any rate, I hope you don’t leave OLO for good, because you do have some interesting ideas…. and whatever your views, I will uphold your right to express them.