We've got that glove puppet RickS and rstuart (one and the same) back again to defend the anti-immigration lobby who are in fact the Sustainable People for an Undemocratic Australia.

I don't know who Sibba is but he/she is right on. Rick, you should be ashamed. He demolished your arguments in one post I've demolished your arguments in three posts and even Michael in Adelaide's grandmother could demolish your arguments while doddering around the leafy Torrens.

Just come out and say that you, like your anti-populationist, anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Vietnamese, Catholic, Irish, anti-humanist and anti-capitalist supporters, hate people who don't look like you, eat like you or AGREE with you.

Aren't two posts enough for you to convey your ideas?

Ah, Sibba the uninformed cornucopian. Although even the most ignorant cornucopians I have encountered in the past have evidenced a bit more knowledge about the world we live in, with the notable exception of Cheryl. Might I recommend you Google “Liebig’s Law” someday, read several of the articles, and think about the implications? And you are flat, dead wrong about sunlight. There is only a finite amount of sunlight hitting the planet each day, and that sun will (likely long after humans are gone) die one day as well.

Dare I even whisper the phrase “Peak Oil” to Sibba, and upset an apparently set-in-concrete world view?

And lowering the birthrate is exactly why Iran has worked so hard to educate women. The link between education and a lower birthrate has been well-documented for decades. Duh!

You invoke the god of technology – you know, the technology that has allowed us to overfish the oceans to the point where stocks of many species have collapsed, and to move large numbers of people to less populous countries so that more even more people can be born in more populous countries (yes, dear Sibba, it’s a vicious spiral that does no one any good). To pin our hopes on human ingenuity without a plan B is simply stupid, given the histories of various failed civilizations.

And you’re right. What you’re promoting is most certainly not wild-eyed idealism. It is rabid and unadulterated growthism. And it is destroying this planet. You clearly have no empathy for the future generations who we, and you, are stealing from right now. Shame on you.

Oh, and dear rabid frothing little Cheryl, I notice that one of your vitriolic little Troll friends was banned from this forum some time ago. Sad. And you make a post like that then claim to care about people too. Even more sad. And how many posts have you made in this forum to convey your ideas? Isn’t two enough for an overpopulation denier like you? Despite all that, the only thing you have ever managed to demolish is your own credibility.

Sibba: "the advance being made in biotechnology."

The technology (fertilisers, pesticides, special crops) that sparked the green revolution was developed 50 years ago and nothing remarkable has happened since. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution There are high hopes for GM, but right now they are just that - hopes. More dreams really, as there no obvious way to increase plant efficiency beyond the old methods of GM we used to produce the green revolution in the first place - selective breeding.

In the mean time the things the green revolution depends on are looking shakey. The petroleum stocks we make fertiliser out of will at the absolute best peak in 2040, but more sober analysis's say they have already peaked. The other major fertiliser, phosphorous, which is the limiting factor for land based life, has doubled in price in the past 3 years. http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/phosphate_rock.html World phosphate will peak this century. http://phosphorusfutures.net/peak-phosphorus We could possibly find a replacement source of energy for making ammonia, but there is no replacement for phosphorous.

Most nations have all available land under agriculture, and water is over allocated and water tables are dropping. http://whyfiles.org/131fresh_water/2.html We are so close to world wide maximum food production when Australian suffered a drought the price of rice doubled http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/rice.html

And you want to bring more people so we won't have any spare rice to give to anyone. What do you think that will do to Egypt, who imports 1/2 of its food now - much of it from Australia? http://countrystudies.us/egypt/84.htm

Iran has had a deliberate population control policy for many years. http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2001/update4ss Yes - one of things they did was female education, but it was not the only or even major one.

Add that all together and it is patently obvious you don't have a clue what we are up against. I suggest you take some time to learn about the planet you live on, rather than cheer-leading all and sundry to breed like flies until we hit exponential overshoot. I like to think we are smarter than flies, but really posts like yours and the behaviour of our pollies makes me wonder.

Same old argument again. Immigration is fantastic because it delivers a plethora of cultural and economic benefits. When this is contested, it is argued that it is extremely selfish and amoral to live in an underpopulated paradise, and in such an instance we will be invaded by our overpopulated neighbours.

Can I understand from this that population growth advocates want Australia to be more populous and Australians to be poorer for the reasons of morality and security? It would also seem that at least some growth advocates would agree that less populated countries are more desirable places to live in.

I'm loving this- absolutely LOVING it!
So far, it's been about five, six pages?
And so far, absolutely EVERYONE is either stating they wish the author would have said something intelligent (both anti-growth and not-so-much-anti), or are actively picking apart what he (kind of) said.
With the exception of two people, Cheryl and Sibba- who basically follow the author's example and;
a- insinuate everyone who is not supportive of large growth and immigration is a xenophobic redneck, eco-extremist or someone who believes "the assumption that Australia and the rest of humanity are on the verge of cooking the planet, running out of water, and other apocolyptic events."
b- REPEAT the author's already-dismissed remarks about us being 'selfish and mean'- as if anyone will care if you simply repeat it often enough.
(and don't complain, these are fair accusations as all three of you have made them- each).
"For as long as we have space, peace and resources some people from crowded, violent or poorer countries will want to make a home here. Who are we to stop them?"
Um, someone who wants to continue having such things?
And that's not even an argument- it's a whinge- try harder.
So far, there have been NO arguments or counter-arguments made by the pro-side why they are right and the other side is wrong- save the couple that have been sliced and diced every which way by everyone else.

So let me get this straight- apparently, I DON'T deserve better than to live in a crowded, congested city, with more limited access to infrastructural resources, and eating GM food because somebody elsewhere in the world currently is?

Quite frankly what goes on outside the Australian jurisdiction is none of our business or our problem outside passively promoting alternative approaches and leading by example. THAT is a sustainable, politically-stable method.

Selfish? Tough. By the way- do Cheryl, Sibba and Jacob use their house as a 24/7 homeless shelter? Just curious.

Well King, glad I came in at the end, the man must be either young or an immigrant, neither of which would qualify him to make a comment about a xenophobic lunar right in Australia.

As for 1969 being compared to now. Well having lived in Sydney, I know 1969 was the best place in the world then bar none. I was born there and lived there; now only visit and love it, but, was it a better place then? You bet you socks it was. It saddens me sometimes, it was where I lived and loved now it is becoming somewhat less than the city I loved.

I love ethnic diversity. I love the change in attitudes to food because of that, but is that the only measure?

We cannot sustain this number of people unless the government knows what it is doing with future infrastructure and it seems on past performance none of them do. Governments think they can sustain a country like this, dry and wide, via taxes on a growing community regardless of the loss of decent living standards.

I think Jacob is a moron or a stirrer and put this post into play to be controversial. He says nothing much to back his claims. London...really? Say no more.

I didn't look at the last two pages, were they worthwhile?