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?”