Australia is currently facing a crisis of gigantic proportions with a shortage of water to meet the needs of the current population. This would be so even without the further exacerbation of the problem from climate change which will serve to worsen the situation. Electricity, Gas, and Vehicle Fuel supplies are also stretched to the limit and becoming excessively expensive and draining on family incomes.

Most States are also facing immense problems of infrastructure inadequacies to meet the needs of the current populations including huge tracts of farmland and bush being taken up by housing developments, desalination plants, commerce, industry, new schools and hospitals, shopping centres etc etc.

Sydney and Melbourne have extreme problems in public transport with the present provision unable to meet the needs of commuters and travellers during peak periods. Main highways into and out of city centres are becoming mere car parks due to the traffic congestion which also adds to environmental and air pollution.

Hospitals and health services are grossly oversubscribed and health care is at crisis levels in most areas. Schools are only just coping and further population increases will undoubtedly cause them considerable problems.

So what are the Federal and State governments doing about these problems.?. They are both working towards increasing the populations and thereby increasing the problems.!. The Federal government are adding to the problem by introducing the Baby Bonus to encourage higher birth rates and the State governments are boasting about how populations of the cities will be increased by the inward migrations which they are encouraging.!. Talk about adding fuel to a fiercely burning fire!. Utter stupidity and ignorance.

The Federal and State governments must immediately announce and work towards stabilising the population at current levels and have a moritorium to halt any further population growth for at least five years until some of these problems are tackled and dealt with. To do otherwise is plainly suicidal for our society and the quality of life of current residents.

Higher birthrates among Aussies is a much better option than immigration. Baby bonus or not some ethnic groups will continue to breed. Before we know it we will be like France, England or Holland. This would be a disaster. We either need to be more selective about immigration or breed more ourselves. We are going to need a lot more workers to pay taxes for the upcoming baby boomer retirements. This won't be done by bringing people here who believe in polygamy and continually milk the welfare system. Hopefully our Governments will have the guts to discriminate in the right way (although I hold little hope).

Yep, spot on Chaz.

It is the most mindboggling thing that our federal government, and every state government, think that rapid population growth has more benefits than negatives.

Or is it that our governments have so totally sold their souls to the vested-interests of big business that wants ever-bigger markets, ever-bigger workforces and ever-greater economic turnover?

Runner, your main concern appears to be that some ethnic groups, presumably within Australia, continue to breed faster than white or traditional Australians. Correct me if I’m wrong.

So, how does boosting our birthrate tackle that issue? An increased birthrate would apply across the board, to all ethnic groups.

Wouldn’t it be a better idea to implement disincentives to have more than one or two kids?

If we did this, those sections of society that breed faster than others would be pulled back into line with the slower breeding sectors…..and we’d be on the right road towards population stabilisation and sustainability.

As for needing more workers to pay taxes for the upcoming baby boomer retirements, I disagree entirely. What we need is a modification of the tax and welfare systems so that more of the enormous wealth pouring into this country can be more equitably distributed to pensioners and to health, education, etc, etc… and so that there are strong incentives for people to stay in the workforce rather than retire.

We have all the wealth we need. We don’t need more workers to generate more economic turnover and tax revenue. We just need a government with the balls to make this huge national income really count in terms of quality of life and security for the whole population.

Part of the problem with democracy is that idiots will not let politicians make hard (but good-and yes i know how tenuous the definition of 'good' is) decisions. For example, the people who profit off the Murray Darling river system over the years and decades (and the state and federal governments) never took any action on this nor would have allowed their politicians to do anything (if they were inclined). These issues have been known about for *decades*.

It is, as Ludwig says, about the quality of life of people currently living in Australia, irrespective of their racial origins. It is our quality of life that is going to suffer even more as more and more people swell the number of people here. It will become increasingly difficult to get medical treatment, to get transport to our destinations, to get school places for our children, to be able to travel in our cars without hitting gridlocks and bottlenecks of traffic, to enjoy the beaches, the countryside, the theatres and cinemas etc etc etc.
Britain already has this gross overpopulation and these are some of the problems they are ecperiencing daily. We do not want or need this in Australia.

Population growth is the main driver of greenhouse gas emissions according to Dr Bob Birrell.

“It is a puzzle as to why the Rudd Government has made no reference, nor its advisor Professor Garnaut to this factor”

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2311605.htm

Runner shows that population growth advocates leave AGW zealots for dead on the scaremongering scale. There are several countries decades ahead of Australia in the age race. Surely then, if these countries a seen to be suffering a calamity, we will have decades to find solutions wont we?

I am also amazed at the differential appraisal of technology by population growth advocates: For the vast problems created by Australia's population, technology is our guiding light and Saviour. Yet for dealing with an aging population, we are in the stone age. Surely technology has something to offer here?

And perhaps a healthy population is of far greater economic relevance than an aging population. Maybe there should be some studies of the economic benefits of better health. e.g. How much damage does the deplorable standard of fast food do to the nations health, and consequently the economy? Yet when do I read about national industry groups lamenting the economic damage caused by mass marketed transfat laden stodge? Never!

Then there is the enormous potential of medical science: In fact the two could be combined, with economic analysis giving an idea of the cost of various afflictions, so suggesting a potential value for developing a treatment.

The argument that more people are needed to pay taxes to keep an ageing population is complete and utter mythology - they were using such tactics in the 1950s and giving dire warnings of an ageing population then!. The mathematics of this argument don't stand up to scrutiny - there is a vast cost to the State to keep any new citizens and children in education, health, pensions, housing and infrastructure etc etc. Taxes paid today by people who will be retiring tomorrow.
The real situation is that governments are spending the money paid today in taxes which should be funding tomorrow's old age pensions if it was wisely invested, on these other increased services when they should be investing it on behalf of the current taxpayers to fund their retirement. So the mythology has been created to hide government misuse of taxes.

ChazP the situation is nastier than you describe, not only are taxes collected squandered on short term pork barrelling like baby bonuses, Mersey hospital, more freeways, NT intervention. There is no planning for a future of high fuel prices, mobile medical graduates migrating to the US, global warming, drier south eastern Australia.

Studies done in 2007 show that if there were 100,000 migrants the average Sydneysider will take 21 minutes longer to travel to work and would have to work an extra 41 minutes a week not to fall behind. Many environmentalists believe that Australia can sustain a population of 13 million. The current practice of exporting food in leading to rapid desertification of the food bowl areas of south western Asutralia and the Murray Darling Basin.

The Australian Financial Review says that the new retirement age will be 70, meanwhile people in their 50s are still falling prey to diseases of old age like osteoarthritis, cancers, blindness. A self funded retiree is no strain on the public purse whilst a baby born will require childcare for 5 years, schooling for 13 years which the tax payer pays and for about a third of all kids the taxpayer pays a single parent pension, rent subsidy and an allowance for each child. People make half their demands on the health system in their final 2 years of life whether they die at 5, 42, 75 or 91.

Meanwhile we have an employment culture which retrenches workers in their 40s, makes workers pay compulsory super which can only be accessed after the age of 55 or 60 and denies them unemployment benefits if they have money in superannuation.

Fester

'Runner shows that population growth advocates leave AGW zealots for dead on the scaremongering scale.'

You obviously have not read any of the scaremongering from the likes of Flannery, Garnaut or Gore or you choose to be ignorant.

Some quotes from an article on “Human Population Growth and Greenhouse Gas Emissions” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/Human%20Population%20Growth%20and%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions1.pdf

“The world’s population has doubled since 1965 and is currently growing by nearly 80 million people per year. Demographers at the United Nations project this growth will continue and for world population to be in the range of 7.8 billion to 10.8 billion by 2050.”

“The overwhelming majority of this growth will occur in the developing world. As developing countries continue on a path of economic growth and industrialization, their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions will increase. Due to the sheer volume of world population growth, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from shifts in energy use and sequestration will be partially offset by the increase in human activity resulting from an increase in population.”

“Varying assumptions about population growth, economic growth, and technological change are included in the IPCC’s “emissions scenarios.” Not surprisingly, the scenario that results in the smallest temperature increase by the end of the 21st century (1.8 degrees Celsius) incorporates the lowest population growth projection (7.1 billion people in 2100)”.

7.1 billion people in 2100? That seems rather optimistic considering that by 2050 the “UN Predicts 12 Billion if Family Planning Falters” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/Human%20Population%20Growth%20and%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions1.pdf

An extra 5 billion would have quite an impact on emissions and other environmental damage…

And yet the current climate change agreement only seems to focus on fossil fuel emissions, and doesn’t properly address the impact of continued population growth.

Given the impact of continued population growth, it is shocking that the “benefits of family planning remain out of reach for many, especially for those who often have the hardest time getting the information and services they need to plan their families.” Apparently, the US is withholding funds for international family planning programs for “domestic political reasons”. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/Human%20Population%20Growth%20and%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions1.pdf

I suggest that if the new climate change agreement continues to ignore the impact of population growth, as did the Kyoto Protocol, it will be a failure. It’s about time consideration of the impact of population growth was put high on the climate change agenda.

Ooops.... Re my previous post 24 July 2008 12:24:42 AM

Here's the correct link for the article "UN Predicts 12 Billion if Family Planning Falters": http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43156

Excellent comments thus far - aside from the predictable drivel from runner. I live in hope that someday soon our governments will wake up to the fact that Australia can't sustain the population we have now in ecological terms, let alone encouraging population growth via idiotic baby bonuses, high immigration etc.

As I've said before, the only immigrants Australia should be accepting are bona fide refugees, on humanitarian grounds.

If the only immigrants allowed in should be bona-fide refugees, how will that impact on our already dire skill shortage? Granted many refugees are educated people and could eventually take on professional positions but many more are from poor, uneducated backgrounds and, apart from labouring jobs and the like, would be unemployable.

Our taxpayers would be further burdened.

We should be aiming for zero-growth in population, even negative growth (in the Chinese fashion).

Of course the Grand Plan of those who have a Common Purpose in promoting and pursuing the `New World Order' want every country in the world to become a mix of races with no borders and with policital/economic blocs between countries.(A single coinage/tax/legal system etc with no national sovereignties).
Europe is the test bed for their theories and already the Rudd Government has been sucked into it - Rudd proposing a Euro-type set-up for the Pacific Rim which has been part of the New World Order Plan since WWII. The Americas are to be the third bloc. All this is being done of course without the knowledge and consent of residents in those countries - the British public were totally ignored in decisions to sacrifice and surrender British sovereignty to the European Parliament.

"All this is being done of course without the knowledge and consent of residents in those countries - the British public were totally ignored in decisions to sacrifice and surrender British sovereignty to the European Parliament."

Just as the wishes of the Australian public were ignored when the previous government surrendered our sovereignty to the US. One person's "new world order" is another's "strategic alliance".

The obsession governments have for population growth to satisfy the myth of unfettered economic growth is going to pose more problems than anyone can imagine. There will be global competition for food, fuel and other resources. Those with power who are pulling all the proverbial economic strings will be the only winners.

In Australia, we can see the devastation of the Murray and Snowy Rivers and the adverse impact on places like the Coorong. Water management issues will only be exacerbated by population growth even if we continue to be water-wise on the domestic front, this is a drop in the ocean (‘scuse the pun) compared to continuing to support water intensive crops like rice and cotton.

What we really need is a foward thinking and courageous leader to really re-evaluate the madness that has swept the Western World and choose not to buy into the economic myths and nonsense touted as some sort of ‘biblical’ truth. Don’t see it happening anytime soon.

I agree with most posters here, especially Ludwig and ChasP.

The reason both major parties have high immigration is simply that they are pandering to big busness, who wants the sale of more and more consumer goods. Big business does not care if ques are longer, if it takes longer to get to work or houses are to dear for first home buyers, etc. In short they do not give a rats about our standard of living. Their only interest is profit!

Big business give big donations to both major parties and the parties reciprocate by policies of high immigration. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

We should insist that the political parties adopt a population policy each and make immigration the main election issue. Not withstanding the two majors have agreed not to publicly discuss immigration.

Good points Banjo.

This site provides some interesting insights to political donations:

http://www.democracy4sale.org/

For the sake of democracy (well the best we can get it to be), there certainly is a case for banning political donations.

Immigration policies dictated by the interests of big business at the expense of the environment (and the voters) are short-sighted and foolhardy to say the least.

"The Federal and State governments must immediately announce and work towards stabilising the population at current levels and have a moritorium to halt any further population growth for at least five years until some of these problems are tackled and dealt with. To do otherwise is plainly suicidal for our society and the quality of life of current residents."

There is an associated cultural aspect as well. There are only so many migrants the Government can bring into the country before we weaken our culture and score an own goal. While a lot of migrants work hard, are law-abiding and are happy to live here, there is a limit to how many can come into the country before attenuation of our culture starts to occur. After all, in the physical world the majority rules.

This is a good reason in itself to start looking at imposing limits.

If the Pacific Rim countries go the way of Europe (as is intended by the New World Order devotees), then everyone in Indonesia, Malaya, Phillipines, Vietnam etc etc would have an automatic right to live and work in Australia at any time they chose. This is what has happened in Britain where thousands of Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians etc have flooded into the country, undermining wages because they are prepared to do jobs for less than British workers and putting enormous additional pressures on housing, education, health, and social services etc.
This is your future Australia, like it or not.! This is what Rudd and co are planning. If those who share this Common Purpose (NWO) get their way - which they will. Suggestions of trying to control current immigration is therefore merely putting a finger in the dyke.

The problem is not population when it comes to water management. The problem is water storeage and management. Governments fail to build Snowy Mountains schemes because of fear of offending the negative population growth advocates. Australia has plenty of water, that is why we record floods each rain season. Australia has fertile soils for food production we just need to manage better the water we receive.

Australia could support on its land mass about 60,000,000 people. Again we build houses, parks and factories on fertile costal lands rather than poorer dryland hills.

Philo,

Australia can't support a population of 60,000,000 people unless we pipe the excess water from the Kimberleys and south east Queensland to southern Asutralia which has received one third of ts climatic average rain for the past decade. In the past decade the autumn rains have failed to fall in Victoria and Queensland had received winter rain.

The changing climate patterns mean the population of South Australia, Victoria, southern New South Wales, southern Western Australia will be living in a desert shortly. Unfortunately these areas are still the foodbowl of Australia and still grow half our export crops.

If we are keen to see a higher proportion of children in our population we will be spending more on teachers, education, child care. If we continue to build sprawling suburbs we will have to build infrastructure like train lines, trains, trams, water pipes, sewerage pipes as well as electricity power lines.

1. ludwig: higher populations have benefits for politicians. that's why democracy is necessary.

2. steel: the main problem is you think you have democracy.

a nation without citizen initiative referendum is not a democracy, it is at best, a 'democracy': a polity whose masters have found it cheaper to control the cattle with newspeak rather than machineguns.

the difference between australia and democracy is clear. the only stupidity in australian politics is in the people, who watch their nation being driven into penury by a few hundred tricksters in big suits while complaining that someone (else) ought to do something. one characteristic of 'democracy' is the psychological neutering of the public.

Poor runner, he along with all those racially base Xenophiles are between a rock and reality.
In their view Australia needs more people to service the never ending Capitalist machine so they can maintain their views (xenophobic elitist) of their culture.
The points they ignore or are beyond them are:
1. We are over populated for our capabilities now. Consequently we are more and more dependant on the world community Asia in particular,
2. The other countries North of us are likewise afflicted if not more so.
3. Sooner or later their “ownership” of our resources and their needs will reach crisis point whereby we become the new Palestine victims of someone else's ideology.
4. The USA will be too involved in its own problems to bother with us.
5. Logic and history tells us we can’t remain an island of ‘white supremacy’ in Asia forever. With Umpteen Billions of then we’d better get to like (accept) them and hope they’re more tolerant than us.

I would ask those “consequence challenged denialists” to explain how they intend to address the above issues particularly 1 but experience tells me their only answer is denial or abuse.(fear and ignorance?)

All the examples given have occurred because the people involved are simply afraid that their less than perfect “cultures” may no longer dominate. In short it’s all about perceived power. To do what? To practise their culture/religion?

The fear of other cultures/religion is based ignorance and/or pretensions of superiority to the point whereby they must be imposed on others.

History shows cultural/religion intolerance occurs primarily only when they are seen as a threat.
History shows us that aggression/violence is the cause of all violence. Christians have a reputation for more cultural genocide than any other religion…it’s been at it longer. The Jewish problem arose and continues because of their elitist views (they are the chosen people).

The obscenity that is the Middle East problem is simple a manifestation of the above inanity and reactionary behaviour by both sides

Odd. Every poster has expressed reservations about population growth through immigration. Even runner. Yet I was listening Chris Evans, the federal minister on immigration, on the radio the other day. I was startled to here him say he thought our population should be around 50 million. At the time I thought "my god, is that what we are up against?".

Actually, now that I have thought about it, I must find out what my local representatives think about population growth. Its one of the few (only?) single issues that would change my vote.

Its hard to know for sure, but I'd be amazed if the pollies aren't way out of step with the electorate on this issue. Even further out of step than the euthanasia thing, if that's possible.

I've got an idea. Graham Y! Are you listening. We need a poll....

According to the World Bank [cited Kolter et al., The Marketing of Nations], the two wealthiest countries in the World are Australia and Canada, respectively. Huge assets, small population.

That said, a larger population would help break-up the Banking and Retail oligopolies, that fleece us on a daily basis.

Agree with Philo water [and infrastructure generally] are very important. In in th US, the roads built in 1950s (?) are starting break-up. Aussie politicians will not plan for the future, against pressure to but votes now. John Howard gave a few hundred here and thousand there; it should have been billions for water, new airports and Highway 1. We want build now and save for maintainance, as required of a big population.

I can't see why we can't benchmark against Canada, especially with Asian immigrants.

The Federal and State governments are knowingly and deliberately damaging the lives and lifestyles of every resident of Australia by encouraging further population growth. They are obviously being strongly influenced by the New World Order loonies who want no borders between countries, a single race of people worldwide with each person having the right to live and work in any country of their choice. (see Barack Obama –“Tear down the Walls between countries” - 24/7/08).

The first step will be to make a Free Trade area between countries of the Pacific Rim – per se’ a fairly innocuous and innocent looking move. Then will come a political alliance as happende in Europe, then the election of a Pacific Rim Parliament (with no powers at this stage), then assimilation of the laws of the Member States, then removal of State Borders with everyone moving to any other country of their choice. Obama obviously shares the Common Purpose of the NWO.

This is the Grand Plan of the NWO loonies and the current incitement and encouragement of population growth in Australia is but a small first step.

But even this first small step is having dramatic effects on the quality of life of us all. A shortage of affordable housing (too many people chasing too few houses), people having to utilise every opportunity to obtain financial credit to buy houses, massive tracts of land being consumed by housing, shopping malls, roads, schools, desalination plants etc etc. Over-crowded roads and public transport because people have to live near cities and towns for their work and the social amenities. Hospitals and health services at breaking point (and will continue so despite the token injection of some cash by the Federal Government). Schools rapidly becoming overcrowded. Social amenities such as beaches, cinemas, theatres etc becoming increasingly difficult to access and more costly due to extra demand.

Even worse shortages of water.

These are but a few of the effects on our daily lives from increasing population.

For the first 39 years of my life I lived and worked on farms before moving to the City. Originaly Australian towns and Cities were established on the 1/4 acre block to allow families to have water storeage, fowls, fruit trees and vegetable gardens to supplement their household use. My impression today is almost no one in the city could self survive because they do not and have no clue to produce any food for them selves. They have become totally dependent upon others for all their needs. Their spirit of self survival is totally lazy.

Australia needs to decentralise and build infrastructure to support population growth. Piping water into the head waters of the Darling into weirs from the gulf country may be an option.

Runner, would you be so kind as to address the questions I posed to you on 23 July. Thanks

“Australia needs to decentralise and build infrastructure to support population growth”

Philo, no doubt you’ve addressed this question previously on OLO, but why should we in Australia do anything to support population growth?

Well doesn't this sound like Eco's in the wind. This planet ticks to its own clock and unfortunately the human race ignores the fact and goes by its own understanding of time.

The maths is simple. If we back off, we will save ourselves and all living things.

Anyone with half a brain can forecast the next 50 years, so, lets keep on thinking that its all going to be fine.lol.

I went fishing the other day, looking for a quiet place to fish, and you know what, I couldn't find one!

I wonder what the problem was? ( not to mention there were no fish)

9.2 billion! GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! The year (2050) Does sardines in a tin come mind? The benefit's of human population reduction out strips the need for wealth. Eat it all now and leave crumbs for the kids! Well, that's what we are all doing. It sort of defeats the purpose for having them in the first place, and wait until they go for their first job, that long cue wont discourage them. Yeah right! and the virus we are.

EVO

Barack Obama is obviously one of the Multiculturalist Mafia Maniacs from his Berlin Speech and is promoting the Common Purpose Group's agenda in seeking to remove all State Border Securities and allow free flow of anyone to any country of their choice as has happened in Europe to the detriment of the British people. Rudd and Brumby are obviously also members of this neo-socialist group in their policies of encouraging increased immigration and population growth.

I had already posted this extract on a GW article thread, however it deserves an airing here, given that sustainability, climate change and peak fuels are all a part of the same challenge humanity is facing.

From Ockham’s Razor, by Ian Dunlop, former Head-of-the-Australian-Institute-of-Directors and now Deputy-Convenor -of-the-Australian-Association-for-the-study-of-Peak-Oil.

“We face major changes to our lifestyle. It is not just high oil prices and global warming but the very question of the sustainability of humanity on the planet as population rises from 6-1/2-billion people today to 9-billion in 2050, all aspiring to an improved quality of life. New technology will undoubtedly come to our aid but that will not be enough; our values must also change. Conventional economic growth in the developed world will have to be set aside in favour of a steady-state economy where the emphasis is on non-consumption and the quality of life rather than the quantity of things.

There will be far more focus on local food production, opening up new opportunities for rural areas; cities will be redesigned using high-density sustainability principles to avoid urban sprawl, and properly integrated with public transport to minimise energy consumption. Work centres will be decentralised. Rail, powered by renewable energy, will become a major transport mode for both freight and high-speed passenger traffic. Air travel will reduce unless new technology develops jet fuel from, for example, bio-sources, and even then emission constraints may limit its use. The internal combustion engine will disappear in favour of electric vehicles for many applications. Cycling and walking will become major activities for both work and pleasure; obesity and diabetes will decline!

The challenge is enormous, but it is the greatest opportunity we have ever had to place the world on a sustainable footing, for what we are doing currently is not sustainable. We must not waste this opportunity, but it needs far bolder and broader thinking than we are seeing at present.”

Full program at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2313512.htm#transcript

We have both the technology and the ability, it is the will that is sadly lacking.

ChazP. Careful your prejudice is showing. Your views seem to be implying that all our threats come from without.People with evil intentions are not exclusive to outside our borders.

Fact of life where there are privileged and non- privileged there will always be tension. Especially when the have-nots believe are being exploited and manipulated, denied an acceptable life and opportunity. Some of the most anti immigration are settled refugees frightened someone will threaten what they have built.

The trick is to ensure that tension doesn't escalate into down right hostility.As is the case between the West and the Middle East, Africa and Asia.Religion, nationalism, extremism all need Gross imbalances of opportunity and injustice to flourish. Borders aren’t the answer equality (through Tollerance)is.

To your seed issue stats show population growth slows with oppotunity and affluence. In a recent interview an African tribespeson was told that statistically starvation would kill 2 in 3 children in his tribe. His response was..."I must have more children so some will be able to look after me when I'm old." the implication is as clear as it is Darwinian. What do you think?

Ludwig

'Runner, your main concern appears to be that some ethnic groups, presumably within Australia, continue to breed faster than white or traditional Australians. Correct me if I’m wrong.'

No, I just don't think we should continue to allow people with completely different value systems to come here and suck the Welfare system dry.

You along with many others assume we are over populated now. Who says? The standard of living here now is much higher than 30 years ago. The main problem is Governments have not planned for the increase in immigration. The Brisbane road system is a disgrace. Most places where Labour State Governments have been in power for a while are similar.

Australia has plenty of resources for lots more people. It just needs to be handled probably. It is laughable how we fail to make dams, increase our immigration and then blame 'climate change' for not having enough water. Greed and lack of planning is the problem not over population.

I actually agree that we could take more money from the welfare system and given to the pensioners

Examinator : "To your seed issue stats show population growth slows with oppotunity and affluence. In a recent interview an African tribespeson was told that statistically starvation would kill 2 in 3 children in his tribe. His response was..."I must have more children so some will be able to look after me when I'm old." the implication is as clear as it is Darwinian. What do you think?".

I have made my arguments abundantly clear in my first posting which initiated this thread. Further population growth in Australia is not sustainable nor affordable and is causing rapid deterioration in the quality of life of current residents, especially those who you have categorised as the `have-nots'. It is they who are suffering most from the housing shortage and being unable to compete for accommodation with rapidly rising rents. It is they who are unable to afford basic foodstuffs and petrol etc as a proportion of their income. It is they who are unable to afford medical treatment and to access public hospital beds. It is they whose children are being educated in over-crowded public schools etc etc.

So if they should rebel as you claim, it will have been caused by this lack of understanding of their position by political decision-makers. At the moment they are being bouyed up by political giveaways and other government handouts such as the Baby Bonus and pre-occupied by Footy events to take their minds off their problems and the big issues, but this will not last forever. But it is not the have-nots however who bring about revolutions, it is the aspiring middle-income grades. whose aspirations disappear along with their previous achievements. See French and Russian Revolutions.

ChasP. I think you are missing my point. Like our polution our population on a world scale is miniscule. Of course we should clean up our own backyard and PLAN our FUTURE rather than "she'll be right mate"

But if we as a species are to survive we need to take a better look at the big picture. When Genhis Kahn and his hoards attacked Kiev and slaughtered the lot I think it was a moot point whose lack of understanding it was. I was refering to 20million "whities" in Aust with 3 Billion poor Asians who will be the first to suffer through pollution or Global Climate change. If we keep giving them the finger guess what might reasonably happen?

The US runaway train foreign policy(?)focuses on internal politics and look what mess the middle east is as a consequence.

Self preservation tells me that if we want to keep the teeming hoards home don't give them a reason to leave. Also there is a clear relationship between poverty and child production
Do I have a specific viable solution? am I proposing any action? No to both. I offer my observation not as a criticsm but for what they're worth.

Examinator: Your argument seems to be that unless we allow immigration to Australia by legitimate means, that hordes from the north will invade us in their millions. I cannot believe you are serious. So immigration is allowed out of fear?. I'm sure Rudd and Brumby will be interested in that reasoning, it seems to fit with every ill-considered irrational policy they have at the moment.
And its not a case of `She'll be right, mate". Its a case of sorting out the current massive infrastructure problems we have at the moment before adding to those problems on the current scale by continuing population growth. I did say earlier that a five year moritorium would give us some breathing space to engage in this process rather than the `Catch-up game' that has constantly been played in the past by Federal and State governments who have now become a part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. They cause the infrastructure problems and then try to look good in solving them - at massive cost to the taxpayers of course.

I couldn't agree more with ChazP's post on the problems that population growth in Australia is serving to compound. Our governments at all levels are acting with practically criminal irresponsibility in encouraging this growth.

Those opposed to continued population growth both worldwide and in Australia recognize that that we are lumbered with finite resources both from a global and countrywide perspective and have worked hard to understand the problems humanity faces as a result of this growth.

They have worked hard also to counter the motherhood statements peddled by vested financial interests that are so often used to further their own agendas. The need to cater for an aging population is one such motherhood that has been well and truly debunked by various contributors to this discussion.

Perpetual economic growth as a necessity of existence is another assumed "given" espoused by the well healed advocates of population growth who ignore the fact that, at least for developed economies as a whole there is no correlation between population growth and per capita income growth. In Australia itself though we are at the moment probably achieving per capita income growth while at the same time bumping up our population at unprecedented rates. Even so I would be very surprised if, because our terms of trade have moved so much in our favour, we would not have been vastly better off (per capita) than we are today had our governments not opted to open the gates to ever-increasing numbers of immigrants.

Certainly we would not have had to face the high level of environmental damage, social disruption and the increasing gap between the rich and not so well off that we now face.

I call on the proponents of continued population growth in Australia to underpin their views with sound science, logic or data or else see the light.

Very good kulu.

So what can the people who share these views do about it?

This is such a critical issue; bigger than any other in Australia….except perhaps for the immediate and very ominous threat that ever-rising fuel prices are likely to have on the very coherence of our society.

What can we do to band together into a united force and tackle the absurdity of very high immigration and continuous rapid expansionism imposed upon us by our government?

How on earth do we deal with issue?

Kulu - I would suggest not holding your breath while you await a rational argument in response to your final question.!. This is one of those issues where the politicians and commercial proponents don't believe in arguing the case with the public BEFORE implementation and then ignore all opposition. This is because they have no logical and rational argument to support it and it is solely to satisfy their greed for power and wealth.
We must all brace ourselves for increasing shortages of water, more vast tracts of bushland and farmland swallowed up by urban sprawl, even more gridlock on the roads and acompanying pollutions, increasing difficulties in public transport to places of work and recreation, longer hospital waiting lists, and more competition for school and child care places etc etc.
My personal protest has been to ignore all water saving measures as they are totally futile and a waste of time, money, and energy, until zero population growth is achieved.
I shall also be making this a major issue to the best of my ability when the next elections come around. Only a politician who supports zero population growth will get my vote and those of many others I have spoken to. And the Greenies don't seem to care about the environmental issues raised by population growth.

Yes, there is a massive battle ahead to get the politician's attention on the disastrous consequences of their mindless pursuit of growth.

The Greens have a policy that does not set limits on refugees but at least asserts that population growth should not be driven by economic goals or the need to counter an aging population. They also are strong on setting policies that address the global population issue which is better than what the big two can offer.

Within the Greens too, which I joined a couple of years ago there is very definite support for a population stabilization policy for Australia and I think it will only be a matter of time before they buckle under and accept a policy that does set limits on ALL immigration to Australia as well as of course policies to discourage high birth rates here. I certainly will do my best to push the issue at every opportunity.

“I certainly will do my best to push the issue at every opportunity.”

The best of luck with that kulu. I hope you are a whole lot more successful than I was in the early 90s.

So Brumby is making a token gesture that he intends to reduce immigration into Victoria. At least he is beginning to acknowledge there is a problem and that this is the cause of the many infrastructure issues. It would be interesting to know how intends to do it - or whether it is just hot air.

Of course he has no control over the handouts of the Baby Bonuses and Child Care subsidies that taxpayers have had to bear, but he could offer a Vasectomy Bonus to counter its effects.!. Maybe double the Baby Bonus?.

The target must be Zero Population Growth within a very short timescale.

It’s hot air Chaz. All that Brumby is espousing is a pause in the acceleration of the migrant influx into Melbourne. He’s quite happy to allow the current rate of influx to continue...apparently

He also stated that he thinks that Rudd’s policy of 200 000 immigrants per year is about right and that he supports continued population growth in Victoria.
http://blogs.theage.com.au/yoursay/archives/2008/08/time_to_slow_down.html

OK, perhaps not quite hot air, but it certainly isn’t as good as it first appears. As you say; he is at least beginning to acknowledge that there is a problem. It is good that he can see that there are limits to the rate of population growth, both into Melbourne and into Australia (he doesn’t want us to have much more than 200 000 pa). But this is still a long way from appreciating limits to population size.

Of course, he like all other major politicians continues to be totally at odds with the general community on the population growth issue. See this poll; http://www.theage.com.au/polls/results.html. The question is; ‘Is Victoria’s population growing too fast? 76% of respondents say yes.