"Go for growth, and try to produce a better example of yourself and you partner, for the next generation of thinkers. It beats talking to machines or hugging trees, at least you get some personal attention and affection and thereby satisfaction which you can touch and feel happy about."

NO! Breeding in the face of overpopulation and resource shortage leads directly to WAR.

They tried that after WWI and the overcrowding led to WWII.

Only women favour war as a means to genetic selection. Its in their genes whether they admit it or not ... Dallas. There's always a woman at the centre of a pub fight and they LOVE it.

The way I see it .. women and girly politicians like Rudd are going to lose out big time as world population grows toward 7 billion. In Australia, there are already signs with degressive child care options.

The ultimate reality of survival on this planet is that before population PEAK, women, THEIR equal rights and economic growth policies rule but after the PEAK, males, brute force and war rule.

It never ceases to amaze me that women have never learnt the downside to playing the genetic survival-of-the-fittest game, at breeding indiscriminately for power and to avert their interminable loneliness.

This time around things will be different and appropriately I believe women are going to have to learn to accept their usual role as subservient citizens in particular with their reproductive rights restricted to one child only.

It makes no sense to endure 20 years of war, famine and disease with at least 4 billon agonising deaths so the current crop of idiot women can "get their personal attention and affection and thereby baby satisfaction which you can touch and feel happy about and BANK on".

Cheryl, how low can you go? Describing your opponent as NAZI isn't a creditable debating strategy.

In fact our current knowledge base owes much to the NAZIs
- invention of thalidomide
- birth atlas to graphically map progress of pregnancy
- rocketry and satellites
- jet engines

If they weren't so racist to have persecuted the slav populations they overran then the map of Europe would be very different today. No I haven't forgotten about the 6 million Jews killed but I also remember the 6 million slavs and gypsies killed directly and the 20+ million Russians killed in war and uncounted other subjugated peoples.

Getting back to immigration:

Australians had the highest standards of living in the world in the 1890s when our population was 3 million?
Until recently the large flows of immigration were
1910
1948 - 1961
1992 -

Australians paid dearly for the post war immigrants who were housed in Ministry of Housing houses located near the car factories where they worked. These migrants worked on the factory floor so the existing population got the higher status, better paid jobs.

Since the 1992 Asians have been able to enter Australia as business migrants, after investing $750,000 here - many bought Sydney harbourside mansions to qualify, but increasingly sending your son or daughter to Australia to study costs $100,000, gives them Australian residency and allows them to work here, then use family reunion scheme.

Cheryl is an academic who must have noticed the ratio of Australians to Asians on campus. In some courses, like medicine and ICT, there is not a skippy in the room and hasn't been for a decade. In the case of ICT the skippys who used to work have found their jobs are offshored to India and Indians are employed as liaison between Bangalore and the client [Australian government department or bank].

The Sydney Morning Herald published figures that said that increasing population added 21 minutes to commute time and people had to work an additional 41 minutes just to retain their existing standard of living.

It's perhaps unsurprising that James derails a discussion about his own article with irrelevant references to his vendetta against me on other threads. However, it's a pity in this case, because not only does it detract from his fledgeling credibility, but it shifts attention from the salient points that he made in the article.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Get help, James - and don't give up your day job. Ultimately, people like you do the environmentalist cause more harm than good.

The Problem: Organising against population growth, dispossession and life-threatening hardship as oil and water deplete.

The mainstream media and government represent the interests of the corporate world. Communicate outside them: Internet, talking, books, films, meetings and markets.

Organise between neighbours and kin for power at a local level.

Default human social structure is along kinship lines of family and clan.

• Local Communities with a history together and especially with intact or strong kinship structures have best chance of organising to survive well.

• Current land-use planning and population programs structurally split-up communities, preventing them from organising.

Challenge local laws that stop us having livestock and water for growing food.

• Re-design communities so that we can grow food and keep domestic animals.

• Retain full use of suburban land and water. Find ways to do this.

The government is public-privatising rural land and channelling water to agribusiness which cares not about you and me. We must stop this.

Laws should be primarily for benefit of local communities, then integrated into region and continent

Inheritance and Land-tenure systems need reform along Roman-law lines, like Western Continental Europe, which was able to reduce future population growth trajectories after the first oil crash in 1973.

Roman-style laws
• Preserve land within families
• Share land equally between men and women
• Minimise land fragmentation and speculation

Basically this means that our inheritance system and land-use allocation and planning system need reform towards:

• male and female equal inheritance,

• prohibition against disinheritance of children (legitmate or illegitimate), and

• leasing to substitute for land-sales

Remember:

Cheap goods are the baubles to seduce and distract today’s indigenous populations.
Today’s indigenous populations are us.
We who were born here.
Let us not be distracted by beads and baubles.

• Land with water and a stable population and society are what counts.
• Land speculation is a mug’s and a con-man’s game.
• High profits in any field are not sustainable in the long term.
• No society that encourages one class to profit at the expense of all the other citizens is sustainable.

“Ludwig, you are rightly concerned about population stabilization and I agree yet when I've asked how you either don't answer or do so with vague assertions and statements like ‘it will be difficult’.”

Examinator, what are you talking about?

I’ve answered one question (from CJ) so far on this thread, to which I gave a straight answer.

If you don’t get the required answers to your questions, then ask more tightly refined direct questions. I’m only too happy to answer them if I can.

“…stop migration and all will be well is BS.”

I presume you say this in response to my answer to CJ’s question. Greatly reducing immigration in Australia is all-important to population stabilisation and the achievement of a sustainable society in Australia. Even with net zero immigration, we wouldn’t be stopping migration in and out of this country. Not by a long way.

“You don’t need to be a rocket scientist or Norman Lindsay to work out that ‘the magic pudding’ is childish fantasy.”

What magic pudding are you talking about?

“To test the validity of your conclusions…”

What conclusions?

I must say, your last post left me quite perplexed.

I agree with James that the average Australian would be better off with low immigration rather than high immigration and I agree that real estate developers promote high immigration. Several studies (here and overseas) have shown that the average workers wages go down with high immigration and housing gets more expensive with high immigration. Now who would want that? Perhaps the people who pay wages and own housing.

Despite that, I don’t think that there is a small cabal of evil developers who want to ruin our lives to make themselves rich. I think it is more likely that the general population is uncomfortable with the idea of sustainability.

There are two reasons. First, we are a species programmed for fight or flight from 100,000+ years ago. We don’t easily grasp the idea that cheap oil and natural gas will be gone in 20 or 30 years (it’s already gone for 75% of humans, but I digress), pollution, etc will be worse, less water and land, etc. We want to do something hard and fast right now. Second, for the last 200 years we have learned that we are the dominant species on this earth. We will do whatever we want to the environment, whenever we want and the environment will take it and say thank you. We don’t live in harmony with nature we kick nature’s ass and send it home to it’s mama.

Wilson Tuckey was on the radio yesterday saying the Victorian bushfires were the greenies fault because the National Parks were just left to grow. The forests hadn’t been subdued enough. Lots of callers and the shows host agreed with him. I don’t think these people are part of an evil conspiracy. They honestly believe that humans need to subdue nature, rather than live with nature.

If we all agree that humans are the best species, then why wouldn’t we want as many humans as we can get. Deterioration of ecosystems, loss of biodiversity and loss of resources are all very complicated. The love of our fellow human beings is simple, and the more the merrier