A carbon tax on babies? Up there for thinking. We're in the domain of the whacko here. Stop immigration? Surely, if you believe in a closed system (which the whole anti-pop argument is based on), then aren't we simply shuffling 'the problem' from country to another - no matter what skills they have?

That's what the anti-pop advocates call people - 'the problem'. Turn clocks back 60 years. Didn't Oliver Reed star in the movie ZPG? A testament to IQ all around.

Good on Bartlett for bringing reason to one of the more hysterical outbreaks of the loony green left.

Daggett,
That point was in support for the larger issue 'how do we reign in on the world's population'. You should read my posts in general Sara Murdoch, and the argument I put in 'Chocky bars' topic. I address these issues in some detail.
Browsing my odd comment is pointless you miss the context and come across as reactionary which I know your not but to be fair to the subject be aware of previous postings.
Thanks for reading anyway.

Andrew Bartlett: "The Australian Election Study survey has shown that the majority of people surveyed at the last few elections have either said they support Australia's migration intake level or would like it higher. Only a minority have said they would prefer lower migration, and presumably an even smaller number would support zero-net migration into Australia."

Funny, every poll I've seen over the last few decades has pointed to the majority of Australians favouring a reduction in immigration levels. In all of these polls, it's only ever been a small minority who wanted an increase in immigration levels.

I find it hard to believe that any survey would find majority support for our present high immigration levels.

Kulu:

You go right on promoting that proposal that women should be taxed, or in effect fined, every time they have a baby and I'm sure the huge support you believe you already have for your cause will grow even more.

You can find out more about the Australian Election Study at this link - http://aes.anu.edu.au/ It is described as "the most sophisticated and exhaustive set of data ever collected in Australia on the dynamics of political behaviour," but I guess that's no match for an internet poll.

Horus, I am not "endorsing" a poll, I am simply reporting it. You might not like the ideas of facts disturbing your version of reality, but that doesn't stop them being facts.

I don't understand what you are getting when you mention "other countries". I was responding to Ludwig's quaint notion that 'other countries' might adopt population control just because Australia - the country with one of the lowest population densities on earth - stopped people from entering to live here.

I assure you the debates I favour are as open and accessible as possible. That's why I comment and respond regularly on topics like this, because I think it useful for people to have access to information rather than rhetoric.

I don't mind you or others continuing to espouse your views as much you like. You can ROFL all you like along the way, but the more you say, the clearer it is how intellectually bankrupt your argument is.

And if your use of scare quotes to describe the refugees from Burma is intended to suggest that they are not genuine refugees, your argument is morally bankrupt as well. Some of them are coming to live in Australia now, so hopefully you'll get a chance to meet some and find out what they've endured.

Countries like Thailand and Malaysia have far more refugees living there than Australia. They also take in plenty of migrants - although they do tend to exploit and mistreat them far more than Australia does. I presume you don't advocate we join them in that regard.

Andrew Bartlett wrote:

Australia - the country with one of the lowest population densities on earth

Dear Andrew,

It is true that Australia has one of the lowest population densities on earth. However, Australia has only 3% the resource of fresh water that the US has. Water is a key resource. The US has approximately 300,000,000 people. With a similar area and 3% of the water the population of Australia should be about 9,000,000 people. If the US has an appropriate population for its available water Australia is overpopulated.

Here's a bit more about those scare quotes Andrew Bartlett mentioned, in case anyone's wondering.

www.tnr.com/currentissue/story.html?id=3e721912-21ef-40ff-90b2-f70236b4f81e