"Before going too far down the "People concerned by population are really Nazis" track...

The problem is not people who are "concerned about" population. It's people who want to use police and prisons to address their concerns about population. The issue is whether the issue is to be addressed by means of *policy* or not. Once someone calls for policy, the issue then includes the use of police, and armed force.

“Funny that, Hitler was always a population growth junkie as far as I know."

Obviously he wasn't as concerns many groups. He, like the greens, had an instrumental view of the use of force on population questions, and a belief that government is capable of solving any problem, given enough power.

"(or Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam; in fact I cant think of any piece of despotic filth who wasn't a population growth junkie)."

Despotism consists of the use of power to enforce arbitrary opinion. That’s the point.

All of these men presided over policies that killed very large numbers of people. When we talk of 'policy' we are necessarily talking about an arrangement that intends to use lethal force, or threats of lethal force, to get the arbitrary result decided by the political process. The greens don't think of themselves as invoking violence. But that's only because they expect that by passing the law they want, they'll get the compliance - obedience - from the rest of the population that they want.

But what if I don't agree, and oppose your policy with the same weapons and tactics that the police will bring to enforce it? They'll use over-powering force.

What if I get a group of other guys to come and defend me? The state will escalate it - right up to war.

But if that is not true, then why not scrap the idea of having a policy in response to the ‘population problem’?

Why not make your response one that is decided by voluntary action, not by violence or threats? I have answered your question. Please answer this last one of mine.

"So instead of taking the moral high ground and likening contributors concerned by population growth to Nazis, shouldn't one more logically be using the Nazi epithet for population growth junkies?"

If you are referring to pro-population policies, it is not *more* logical to call them Nazis. It is equally logical.

But if you are referring to people who want to have a baby, without forcible interference either for or against, no they do not deserve the epithet of Nazi, because they are not proposing using tasers, guns, handcuffs and prisons against anyone to get what they want.

"The reality is that the government considers there to be an underpopulation "problem" according to the consensus of values of the pollies, and they are involved in a manipulation via immigration and the baby bonus to correct this "problem". Is this any less unethical or justified by *your* own measure?"

No. Pro-population policies are no less unethical and unjustified, and should be abolished

A very good article, Michael; well written and supported. I look forward to your next one.
As most of the more rational posters on this thread have identified, Australia's population growth is more due to immigration than reproduction -despite such ludicrous white Australia policies as the baby bonus. This means on a global scale, Australia's problem is not so much growth as it is redistribution.
The answer to reproductive growth has been clearly demonstrated for decades. As one poster on this thread quoted, Australia's reproductive rates, in line with other advanced countries, is less than replacement.
Poverty, and infant mortality, are the main drivers of population growth. As one of the early OPEC oil ministers was quoted: "We were very poor. It was common to have 6 or 7 children, in the hope that one might survive".
Higher standards of living, better medical care and better education -particularly of females- have proven time and again to be highly effective in lowering reproductive rates.
Personally, I think there is an element of human pragmatism, which has been so far under appreciated in this topic.
Agrarian populations have always tended to have large families, even in richer countries. When people start moving to the cities, reproductive rates tend to drop.
Simply put, on a farm children tend to be an asset as cheap labour. In the cities, particularly if education is compulsory -and child labour is outlawed- children are a cost.
Ergo,the very simple way to reduce the population overall is to make sure having children is economically non-viable.

<Why not make your response one that is decided by voluntary action, not by violence or threats? I have answered your question. Please answer this last one of mine.>

The action that would have the greatest impact on world population growth would be education, the recognition of women as having equal rights, and the availability of contraception. I dont think that anyone would object to the pursuit of such things.

In Australia's case, the population is already headed for stability but for government intervention to increase the population. This is the case in many countries as it is widely believed to be a driver of prosperity. It was also the view of the despots I mentioned, though Mao did change his mind when the problems of a growing population became overwhelming.

I think the idea that government have no role in determining population is unrealistic. The notion that a population policy implies jackbooted thuggery is alarmist. For Australia, the implication of such a policy may be to train more Australians, with the bonus that we will not have to pilfer skilled workers from the rest of the world. This hardly seems like something to fear.

While I wonder if Curmudgeon wasn’t being a wee bit satirical in suggesting his solutions. I do wonder how all the focus on immigration will solve anything.

• Climate change (note those words) Knows no borders.

• Population concerns aren’t new as far back as the late 60’s ZPG was a plank in the ‘Australia Party’ there was even a Hollywood movie emotionally deploring it.

• Our wheat was being sold at below it’s real cost of its production, bounties, preferential treatments, loss of non replaceable minerals etc in the soil. 70’s.

• Add to this wholesale loss of arable land due to tree clearing/ water table rises, the drying of the artesian basin 80’s, Perth is even worse already having used a great percentage of its fossil water at a greater rate than remplenishment. Now the CSIRO confirm that the loss of tree cover is causing changes in rain fall patterns,

• Desertification of marginal farming lands, erosion (massive topsoil dust storms) in Melb. Mallee topsoil has been found on NZ coastal trawlers. Since the late 70’s

None of the above are new and like the song “Vincent” says “they didn’t listen then perhaps they’ll listen now.” if not what will it take?

All the “oh dears”, “tut, tutting” in the world are going to achieve anything. Neither are more chicken Littles…. As my Dad used to put it “if there must be panic let it be organized (planned)”
It’s time for ideas what we CAN do not continue arguing over the self evident. Our human mass is of such a size (number) that our very existence in our current behaviour is inexorably changing the world like no other species and not necessarily for the better.

We as a species need to decide do we remain as victims of Evolution or do we modify the theory by changing the part of our conditioning that we can but we need to do it en mass.

Basically the whole world stops dead in its tracks. In the event of global natural disaster which in such a case all communications and trade would come to a complete stop and then all back to our corners we would go, so is there a way to make the same scenario happen without all the blood and death.
Can we see the future before it happens?

We need to get rid of the need for money.
Hey! why does everything need a price attached to it?
I do prefer the world of the three musketeers but I guess greed on the black horse or four the case maybe will darken us to the last hoof print.

Why people cant get there minds around the benefits, the imagination of the future and its people are far worse, and which ever way you look at it the one's who's disfavour it is in, they will be the one's to appose it. (anyone smell greed)
I think going back to the country and spiritual way of looking after this land must be taken seriously and pay less attention to the outside world. US in particular. while we can be friends being good buddies just wont happen. You have your culture and we have ours.
To take a stance and become more independent and completely shut the door on immigration because it make the sense for the reason everyone wants to live here.

To be quite frank Australians are feeling the pressure of a once relaxed lifestyle and now not so. To me that is a clear piece of evidence that the people are calling for well no more people.

So when greed stops, then you can have your nice clean planet back.

So no-one wants to get small and smarter.

Iam sure to Murray or the darling, maybe just a 100 thousand more wont matter! Yeah! she'll be right mate! bugger it! make it another 5 million people! why not, we have plenty room bro.

Runner. I am not going to say a word.;)

Smile.

EVO