What on earth is Rudd’s rationale for maintaining our ridiculously high immigration rate, given the effect it is having on our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and several other huge environmental, economic and social concerns?

It is just so straightforwardly obvious to any reasonably intelligent person (including Rudd) that rapid population growth in this country is absurd.

One has to assume that he is being highly disingenuous in bestowing this massively high immigration rate up on us…and in boosting the baby bonus.

In the lead-up to the election he didn’t mention an increase in the already ridiculously high immigration rate. Then one of the first things he did after being elected was to increase it…without public or expert consultation.

Rudd knows that he is seriously playing up here. Rather than make any effort to balance the push from the real estate industry and other big business vested-interest sectors, he is just pandering to them all the way.

He is strategically trying to keep the issue out of mainstream discussion, and doing what all leaders before him have done – espouse the positives without ever mentioning the negatives, in a totally one-sided, biased, scurrilous presentation of the issue.

I couldn’t be more disgusted.

One piece of good news on this issue is that the Australia Conservation Foundation, at long last, seems to be actively onside with the push to reduce our population growth rate.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/18/2468629.htm

Yes, discussions about population growth has been sadly lacking in the environmental debate. Governments are too stuck in the myth of continual growth at the behest of business interests to even consider for a moment that population is a key factor in pressure on resources. It is barely mentioned in these debates.

One of the greatest disappointments has been the failure of the Greens to place more emphasis on this issue. When did it become politically incorrect to raise population growth as an issue? I suspect it was during the economic rationalist 80s.

Like the financial crisis which has exposed how greed can bring down a nation, it may take an environmental crisis to bring population into the debate on sustainability. Perhaps the reality is that on some issues, humans will only learn the hard way.

I have never read so much crap in regards to the 'overpopulation' myth. When are people going to demand some evidence instead of accepting this socialist myth with no scientific backing? The stupidity and selfishness of Australians not breeding will lead to someone else benefiting from our numerous resources. We are stupid if we are not selective about immigration but certainly not because we are over populated. The 'over population myth' is similar to the global warming myth. It is a scaremonger tactic of those wanting to push their own agendas and fill their own pockets and egos.

runner - you of all people talking about scientific backing.

Why is it inconceivable to ask how a portion of land (mainly consisting of desert) can keep on sustaining an ever increasing population for an indefinite period of time without having a major impact.

Science will tell you if you that resources are not a bottomless pit, some are renewable but not at the pace required to keep up with population (such as water). Some are not renewable (some minerals etc). How many years did it take for a bit of organic matter to make oil?

This has nothing to do with socialism - (blatant paranoia). This issue overrides politics.

Our cities are overcrowded, transport is at bottleneck, the best farming land is being handed over to housing development, river systems are dying, more dams are on the planning board, water shortages have hit most Australian cities - what more evidence do you need?

Logic dictates that you cannot go on increasing population if there is no corresponding increase in avaiable water, food (such as dwindling fish stocks) etc without having an environmental (and other) impact.

Sustainability means forgetting about politics and the impediment of a short-term electoral cycle and getting on with the business of doing what is needed.

Pelican - all true. I reckon it's not being discussed because it violates a basic principle of society - that the economy comes first. We're all here to serve the economy, not the other way around; how will Macquarie Bank revive if it doesn't have the requisite numbers?

Runner - our numerous resources consist mainly of plain dirt containing special dirt other countries are willing to pay money for. That will last a while but we still can't eat it, or drink it, or live on it. In case you haven't noticed, we're kinda short of water and suitable places to build houses.

Since you've mentioned it, can you cite scientific backing for anything you've said...ever?

Pelican and Bennie

Their is no doubt that parts of the world and Australia are overcrowded. Hopelessly incompetent State Governments have failed to plan for the increase traffic and the lack of building dams where water falls (usually opposed by the feral Greens). To say we are over populated however is simply not true. By whose measure are we over populated? Tonnes of food is still wasted and their is enough food to feed the world many times over. Kangaroo meat itself could easily supply meat for our population and much more. In every city in Australia you still see people watering lush Green lawns. South East Queensland has had enough rain to cause numerous flooding in the last few months. Your assertion that we are over populated is simply a myth or at best an opinion.

You say Pelican that we must forget about politics and then push your own idealogy.