Deliverance,
Thank you for your observations.
Tragically the alternative to one extreme isn't necessarily the extreme opposite.
In essence I acknowledge there is a a problem but it is very much larger than the prof's article is hairdressing or promised to address.
I dispute that the solutions are easy and are limed to lets find some 'sacrificial lambs' i.e. migrants et al.

In the long haul and that is our (world) problem a few thousand migrants etc. won't save our sorry arses.

Mal and his troglodytes argue that we are a global economy and therefore we must act accordingly.
In Kevin's naive NARROW PERSPECTIVE of Australia anything we do will be 'moving deck chairs' the effect will be swallowed by the teeming masses elsewhere.

Should we do something ? yes change our demands introduce a steady state economy etc but the big question is HOW?
I submit that the introduction of a steady state economy would allow the world time to adjust to the reality that 'magic pudding' economics are terminal...For us all.
The question is then What IS STEADY STATE ECONOMICS and HOW will it work and HOW can it be implemented.
The time for Current navel gazing(lifeboat Australia) and/or theoretical solutions has passed we must face existing power bases/interests for the sake of humanity ....This ultimately isn't hyperbole or rabble rousing but shear logic.

Dear Examinator,

Steady state economics is really a misleading name. In chemistry and physics a steady state is one in which there are no measurable changes. In any real economy there will be changes in demand and supply according to conditions.

Balanced or sustainable would be better descriptors than steady state. http://dieoff.org/page88.htm describes such an economy.

"It really is that easy."

Yes, because of course Asian and African nations are going to sit by quietly and let us drastically reduce our immigration quotas without batting an eyelid. How absurd to think that they might resent the loss of opportunities for their students and professionals to come here, contribute to our society and remit large proportions of their salaries to families back home. Why should we be worried about China, say, objecting to a cut in immigration? it's only our biggest trading partner, after all. And so what if the US -- which has more immigrants in a week than we do in a year -- considers that we're not pulling our weight in taking in the world's upwardly mobile? It's not as if the US has any influence on our government's policy, is it?

This is fairyland stuff. Earth calling Peter Ridd -- come in, your time is up.

Peter Ridd is correct: the Federal Government's push to rapidly expand the size of the population through massive immigration is folly. There is no rational justification, economic or other, for these ridiculously high levels of immigration. Perhaps that is why the Federal Govt. still hasn't satisfactorily explained why it believes Australia needs the biggest per capita immigration intake in the world.

The truth is that we do not need an ever-expanding population in this country, as the growth ideologues believe. Our long-term prospects for environmental sustainability, social cohesion, and a high quality of life for all Australian citizens will be much improved if our population were stabilised at current levels, instead of more than doubling by 2050, which is precisely what will happen if immigration continues at present rates.

Ridd is indeed correct to point out the adverse impact further immigration-driven population growth will inevitably have on Australia's future trade balance. Population growth will not only dilute our per capita export earnings, but also induce more imports, thereby exacerbating Australia's chronic current account deficit.

A growing population will also require greater investment in housing and other social infrastructure. Because of Australia's low levels of domestic savings, the investment capital needed for such infrastructure will have to be imported from overseas, further adding to our current account woes. Moreover, the massive social infrastructure investment required to accommodate a rapidly growing population will result in more precious foreign capital being gobbled up by non-tradable sectors of the economy at the expense of tradable sectors, precisely at a time when increasing pressure will fall upon Australia to invest heavily in the tradable sector in order to export its way out of insolvency.

In short, Australia cannot afford further immigration.

Cheryl wrote: "I want MORE people to come to Australia. I want to open the gates wide. Give us your hungry, tired and homeless. We are humanitarians, we are liberal humanists."

In that case, I can look forward to moving into your house, with a whole host of my relatives, who have always fancied living in your area. And since your such a "liberal humanist", you will have no problem allowing us unfettered access to all your belongings and allowing us full use of all amenities at your expense. It doesn't matter how small your house is, or how limited your budget is, Cheryl, because I know that, as a matter of logical consistency, you could have no possible objection to moving over and making room for all of us.

After all, a person who favours open borders can hardly oppose open houses.

Cheryl, a true humanist -- one who truly cares about ALL people, including the generations to come -- would heed Ridd's warning instead of meeting it with nonsensical vitriol, and work to preserve some sort of semblance of quality of life for our children, and for theirs. The misanthropes are the overpopulation deniers who support the current status quo, promote more destruction of the environment and our current gluttony when it comes to resources, and generally shirk responsibility for the consequences of our actions. They ignore the current Sixth Great Extinction of other species, the collapse of ocean fish stocks, the millions who (according to the U.N.) die of malnutrition and starvation every year, the billions (again according to the U.N.) who live in abject poverty. Those are the true antihumanists and, unfortunately, they have somehow taken over much of this planet. It's time to take it back.

And for those who say "oh, but there's still lots of room," sure there may be space to stuff more people into, but why would we wish to do this if it is only making matters worse? There's lots of room in Antarctica too, but that doesn't mean it will support a population of millions of humans. Will you propose that we start stacking people one upon the other when we are shoulder-to-shoulder on every piece of land? How high would you stack them? To the edge of the breathable atmosphere? Get real, and get a brain sometime.