Andrew, what about the core issue here – that of continuous population growth with no end in sight?

Can you just tell us straight up if you are in favour of this or whether you would like to see a limit somewhere along the line, both globally and in Australia?

Assuming that you do advocate an eventual limit on both these levels, what sort of numbers do you envisage and how are we going to achieve it? (Yes I know, this has been asked before. But I don’t recall seeing an answer)

You and I have had occasional exchanges on this forum for the past two or three years. What you’ve had to say has left me very unimpressed indeed.

“So the best response to having too many people on the planet is to keep as many of them as possible out of Australia?! Good way to encourage people to think globally!”

YES Andrew, this is a VERY good way to encourage people to think globally. If we put a concerted effort into addressing our population-growth and sustainability issues and show the world that a country with a great deal of growth pressure can achieve a sensible balance between its resource base and environment, and its population and affluence, then we would be going a very long way towards being a good global citizen and encouraging other countries to do likewise.

What is the alternative? Allow very high immigration for decades to come, thus screwing our environment and resource base to the point where we can offer a quality of life that is no better than many of the countries that generate refugees and desperate poverty, or much worse?

How could Australia maintain a very high immigration intake and maintain a half-decent quality of life for them and existing citizens?

Net zero immigration or net emigration or at least very low net immigration is an essential prerequisite for the achievement of a sustainable society. Isn’t it??

We do not have the firepower to sustain a smaller population. We would be taken over in no time.

Slug wrote: "We do not have the firepower to sustain a smaller population. We would be taken over in no time."

That is the argument that has been used by Hitler and Stalin when they gave awards to overbearing women. We must have people to defend us.

Within limits it is not our population size that protects us. Indonesia has over 200 million people to the north. To them it does not matter whether we are 15 or 40 million. We are part of the developed world, and I think it unlikely that any nation from the less developed world is likely to try to take us over. No less developed nation has succeeded in that attempt, and I doubt that one will do so. Israel is part of the developed world and exists with its small population relative to the much greater population of the surrounding and opposing Muslim states because with its power and the support of the US the surrounding states cannot put an end to it even though the neighbouring states have received large shipments of arms. We are in a better position than Israel because our neighbours are not as opposed to us, and the population imbalance is not as great. If Australia was reduced to its Aboriginal population it would be invaded by neighbours. As it is I think we could continue to exist with a population of 15,000,000 or even fewer.

<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.>

Peter

I think you are making some false assumptions here. One is that any forced action implies totalitarianism. Many of the freedoms enjoyed today have resulted from either sanction, violent action or the threat of violent action. That is their irony. The black civil rights movement in the United States is a recent example of this process.

Things like equality for women, access to education and the availability of contraception seem very mundane in a place like Australia, yet their attempted introduction in some parts of the world would be met with violent opposition. Would you consider people trying to make forcible change in such places totalitarian? I think that the least that can be done is to engage in an active cultural exchange with these parts of the world, so that some of their citizens might at least have a life experience of another civilisation. At least by this means they might see the benefits of change and not have to reinvent the wheel.

On the question of population, the rights that have been mentioned are adequate to stabilise the population. So the only intervention or force you will observe where such rights are present is for the purpose of increasing the population.

If you think I am being evasive with this answer, please tell me where and I will try and make my answer more specific for you.

Gee, this guy is a glutton for punishment - and Clive Hamilton thought OLO was being hijacked by climate cynics!

I really think the Greens should take this anti-capitalist, anti-growth, anti-jobs, anti-family stance to an election. The electorate would see the far left of their party for what they are. They are hijacking an important issue (environment) by going down an anti-humanist path. They will be wedged so badly and then blown out of the water.

It has been at least 30 years since I've seen socio-biological arguments rear their ugly head.

The hilarous part of the Greens is that they manifest severely when a Christian speaks about the need of redemption because of our Adamic natures (any fool can observe man's nature). Though many holding the Green dogmas live and behave like animals they claim some sort of immunity from being full of greed immorality hate etc.

Now here we have the height of hypocrisy where the Greens see people as the enemies of the planet. You know let the man eating shark live while we all sit and eat fish and chips on the beach. Lat man starve while the kangaroos eat the crops. They really are a bad joke with many deluded followers.