We have just started a new campaign, a prayer campaign that it doesn't rain so that these silly twits spending their $6.00 a week donation from little johnny on all those luxuries they couldn't afford under a Labour Government will start buying condoms and cut down the birth rate and give us all a chance of survival.
An expanding population will not sustain itself for long and you only have to look around the world to see it.

Hmmmm

Seems what we have here is new age theorisms competing for resources and open political ground. Sort of like eugenicists, toilet drinkers, non-sustainabilitists and those that are stumped.

Wayseer and Gump have lept to a fine start running a new race. The conclusion of which will be that when the trees are gone, we will be able to see the way to answer the forrest of questions we were asking earlier on.

Perhaps when the sea rises, and the inland floods once again, convection will turn the dry around. Maybe we should send the dozers in now, and avoid disaster.

All those in favour, say Ay.

Ludwig has missed the point.
The baby bonus is to get the birth rate up to a sustanable level.
Ludwig is on about sustanability, well that applies to us all as well.
The birth rate is below 1.8. We need about 2.2 to maintain ourselves.
Thats what an aging population needs.
The CSIRO once said we can support about 25 million on the available water and they might reduce that figure now.

O dear Bazz

Surely you don’t really believe this.

As this is really not within the subject of this thread, I have created a new thread just to address it.

Please see ‘Population growth misconceptions’ (It’ll take a while to be approved, I gather)

Thanks all - looks like I'm not all that alone.

Sustainability - balance - is the answer but I'm not going to kid myself and accept that all the mega-businesses will suddendly reverse their positions; neither will the super funds - all of which are driving the insane depletion of resources, including water.

We live on the driest and largest inhabitable island yet our policies are more in tune with those who in earlier times inhabitated Easter Island - where resources and water devastered the population whose only considered response was to have yet more children while they built yet more statutes to appease the gods who would hopefully send the much needed rain to support the ever increasing population. That scheme failed as the archaeological records confirms.

The buy-back scheme is another attempt to appease the gods and like the trial on Easter Island, this too will fail. Wonder what future archaelogists will make of all this.