I agree daggett and billie. It is no accident.

Human beings must be the only animal species to actively take part (unwittingly or otherwise) in their own demise through 'growth at all costs' economic thinking and the religious sector's vested interest in growing their market base.

Except perhaps for whales who appear to beach themselves for no (as yet) apparent reason.

Well, population planning mightn't be a necessary step - first world nations often have naturally declining populations.

In fact, the biggest problems Australia faces, is the fact that there are a lot fewer middle aged people than baby boomers. When it comes to people under 20, there are fewer still.
This causes enormous problems for the economy to which immigration is an answer, but anti-immigration advocates have put forward no alternative solutions.

Population growth comes from the third world - if we can lift standards somewhat, we may be onto something.

The size of any population must be kept within the limits of its natural resource base. Australia's capacity to sustain a large population is limited because the continent is largely arid, with old, nutrient-poor soils and a variable climate.

Global climate change will lead to a deterioration of natural ecosystems through increased temperatures, extreme weather events and less rainfall in the southern part of the continent, thus reducing its capacity to sustain a large population even further.

We need to detrmine what is an ecologically sustainable population at an acceptable level of material consumption, both nationally and internationally and to seek to achieve that in a humane, non-coercive manner as soon as possible.

We also need to reduce our consumption rates and improve energy efficiency dramatically.

Billie wrote: "Yes the housing industry ... are responsible for promoting population growth to ensure a steady demand for their product."

Check out this advertisement which appeared in yesterday's Courier Mail newspaper on page 7 and also on the web at http://www.firststaterealty.com.au

Everyone knows south-east Queensland property is
booming. While prices have risen, the potential
for capital gains for those now entering the
market is marginal in many traditional areas.

The great news for astute investors is that there
is a hotspot where property values have not peaked.

Not yet anyway!

QUEENSLAND'S EMERGING HOTSPOT

This is a hotspot where the government is pouring
$500 million into infrastructure.

A hotspot where education facilities are expanding
rapidly and major developers are already snapping
up large parcels of land.

And a hotspot where the population is predicted
to double by 2016 and then keep growing strongly.

Yet, in this emerging hotspot, property is still
significantly under valued!
(endofquote)

Not sure where in South East Queensland this hotspot is, but it demonstrates that land speculators seek to both profit at our expense from population growth and by taxpayers' spending on infrastructure (slightly off topic - my apologies). The latter is the opposite of what the Property Council of Australia would have us believe is the current situation.

TurnLeftThenRight,

The obvious flaws in the "aging baby boomer" argument has been pointed out so many times that I should be astonished that it is repeated by such an otherwise clearheaded person as yourself.

What happens when these supposedly essential young immigrants retire? Do we then increase our population further through more immigration to cater for them in their old age? At what point do you suppose this process should stop? When Australia's population reached 50 million or 100 million?

Why not now?

Whatever problems were meant to have been solved past population growth have clearly been dwarfed by other problems they have created. These include:

* horrific traffic congestion See Courier Mail's editorial "Transport fix long overdue" at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23470686-13360,00.html);
* the claimed necessity of damming the Mary River(http://www.savethemaryriver.com) together with rich agricultural land and the the habitats of the endangered lungfish, the Mary River Cod and Mary River Turtle in order to meet the water requirements of large urban areas to the south;
* extreme housing unaffordability and the rental accommodation crisis;
* the inability of our hospitals and schools to attend to the needs of our current population;
* etc, etc?

It seems to me that you are afflicted with the cornucopianism that has plagued the socialist tradition for most of the twentieth century and helped in the 21st century to consign it to irrelevancy at least in the First World.

A good antidote would be Sandy Ivine's (http://www.sandyirvine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk) 20 page pdf document "Trotsky's Biggest Blindspot" which can be downloaded from http://www.sandyirvine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PDFs/Trotsky%27s%20Biggest%20Blindspot.pdf

In spite of a few typographical errors it is hard to commend Irvine's article too highly.

A html version can be found at http://candobetter.org/node/392

I also highly recommend Tim Murrays' "Is it reactionary to oppose Immigration?" at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2240 http://candobetter.org/node/284

Daggett, I wasn't implying that immigration was anything more than a stopgap solution.

I was saying, that until we have a clear way to resolve these desperate skills issues, a stopgap solution is all we have.

I was also making the point in a roundabout fashion, that we don't need population control programmes in most first world nations - this problem we have, with declining numbers in younger populations, is evidence of the difficulties we face.

Though those difficulties aren't due to us having too many children - it's quite the opposite. So when I hear people simplistically saying we need some kind of population control method I can't help but feel they're neglecting the fact that first world populations are naturally declining.

Put simply - if it's the big picture we're looking at, then we need to be considering how to address these problems and seriously assist the third world with birth control measures, and alternative methods for their elderly to be looked after, rather than having children.

If we're not looking at the big picture, then heck, the problems we face in cutting migration are just as big as the problems we face if we don't.