I think Alme is correct, we need a new political party that puts the interests of Australian people first. However I do not see this eventuating. Look how the two major parties colluded to bring One Nation down. That sort of opportunity comes along vary rarely and we did not take advantage of it. The media are in the pockets of the major parties and did not take up the major reforms proposed by ON. e.g. a new national bank and Citizen Initated Referenda and Zero net immigration.

Maybe someone will come along in future that has the ability to capture the peoples imagination but things may have to get decidedly bad before that happens. Don't forget that to counteract the resourses of the government and major parties, it would take an immence amount of financial resourses.

There may still be time for Aus but I think Britain and many European countries have past the time when recovery is possible. We wil see a decline in the living standards and violence/unrest in all countries.

We should really fear for the future of our grandkids and be thankfull for the good years that we have enjoyed. Pity that many are too stupid to see this.

Extract from W.H. Auden's "The Unknown Citizen:"

-Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
-That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
-When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.
-He was married and added five children to the population,
-Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his
generation.
-And our teachers report that he never interfered with their
education.
-Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
-Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.

That sounds very much like many NGOs, and very much like David Suzuki to me (except perhaps the part about war). When maintaining the organization becomes more important than the ideals and principles of the organization, the activities of the organization become counterproductive for many of the rest of us. In the case of organizations which are supposedly devoted to environmental causes, the effect is even more pernicious.

Last time I looked their was plenty of room outside with the Supermarkets filled with food. The countries without seem to be dictatorships with a long history of corrupt Governments. This is more about people getting their knickers in a knot about very little. Seems like the author feels it would be wrong for many more to enjoy the same standard of living that he has. It is similar to the true believers in man made warming who insist on taking a plane to every earth worshiping seminar on the planet blinded by their own hypocrisy and wanting to stop others from enjoying a little of the benefits they have.

Last time I looked, ocean fish stocks were collapsing, water shortages were occurring around the world, our food production and transportation were unsustainably propped up by declining fossil fuels, and "plenty of room outside" was experiencing the Sixth
Great Extinction because of human population pressure. Some people seem to want a human monoculture, with humans shoulder-to-shoulder on this poor planet, before they will be at all concerned. Others wish to use our intelligence to solve the problems before they become even worse. I suppose this same debate occurred just prior to the collapse of many past civilizations, and I hope that the result is not the same.

An excellent article and a lot of wise comments, especially from Leigh, John D, and Rick S.

To the denialists here, I recommend this free, downloadable book from the Earth Policy Institute that discusses the issues raised by Rick S in detail and is choc-a-bloc with references to government documents and research papers. Please now explain how it is all some vast conspiracy or how the sources have all been misrepresented.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/Contents.htm

This is a link to an article in the May Scientific American by Lester Brown, an agronomist and one of the authors of the previous book. It discusses the desperate food situation that poor countries are likely to encounter due to eroding topsoil and pumping dry of the aquifers under major food growing regions of the world.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=civilization-food-shortages&sc=WR_20090428

This is a report of a speech by Britain's Chief Scientist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/perfect-storm-john-beddington-energy-food-climate

"Our food reserves are at a 50-year low, but by 2030 we need to be producing 50% more food. At the same time, we will need 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water."

As per Michael Lardelli's articles on this forum, essentially we humans made a bargain with our crop plants during the Green Revolution. The plants would put more energy into grain and less into roots, stems, leaves, and chemical defences. The humans would take care of supplying water and nutrients, and look after spacing and control of weeds and other pests. What happens when we can't keep our side of the bargain?

Forming a new political party is complex and time-consuming. Then it can take decades to win widespread public acceptance. There are two alternatives:

1) Invade the existing parties to attempt to influence their choice of candidates

2) Form a lobby group that offers to donate LARGE sums to a party that opposes population growth.

The second suggestions my not be as difficult as one imagines - with a good internet campaign.