Mr Leichardt (aka Ludwig)

like your name sake you've lost the plot and wandering off into the unknown.

Somewhere along the line cause and effect has been derailed.
If S/E Qld runs out of water it won't be the 'future millions' that will go dry it will be current residents.
If a resource a limited source is used up....Everyone goes go thirsty.
Qlds will stop all the water down the Murray Darling and take the life blood of everyone else. Seems a bit like cutting off noses despite everyones' faces.

Perhaps something got lost in translation but it all sounds half baked to me. The idea sounds a bit like suggesting if we all drink the milk in Qld less babies will be born!
Capitalism's supply and demand only works on an even playing field. Even evolution works if left to its self. The problems are both attitudinal, physical and temporal. No water means no industry, no jobs no people...at all. Where do the current people go when there is no water? South? to Darwin? how do we stop people from breeding.

Change the people attitude and numbers,you change the outcome...The question is how? 'A bit difficult" isn't an answer. it's either very naive or arrogant take your pick

Ludwig,
Go for it and I hope it gets enough support to succeed in getting the feds to reduce immigration to some reasonable level.
What OUG, Jewely and Examinator do not understand is that both the coalition and labor want high immigration simply to appease those that bribe the parties for that purpose. They have no concern about what is good for Australia. We suffer water restrictions and they keep dumping more people here that use more water.

One would think it should attract support from the Greens as they oppose the building of any more dams and on paper, if not in practice, claim to be low immigration advocates.

The idea of wasting water is just bizare enough that it may work. Pity we just can't turn off the water to parliament house.

Examintor, it seems we are all on this post looking desperately for ways to attract the attention of the governments and the people who vote them in so that we can somehow get the message through that population growth and indeed the current level of population are the ultimate cause of the environmental and social problems we all face including Australia, the lucky country.

What are we to do? Sit back and wait for these audiences to wake up and respond? No amount of evidence or pleading or appeals to rationality have worked so far and scientists and activists have been trying at least since the late sixties with Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" bringing the issue to the forefront.

More and more natural and social scientists of all persuasions, although population dynamics is not their particular interest, draw the link between planetary stresses and population and more and more within the audience draw attention to it too. But still the juggernaut rolls on. What are we to do?

Xammy, I can’t work out what you are objecting to!

In the interests of a healthy debate, can I ask you to quote from my posts the statement/s that you most strongly disagree with, followed by an explanation of why you disagree. Thanks.

Ludwig and others,

I thought I made my self clear but apparently not.

I haven't read the book hence I said “Perhaps something got lost in translation but it all sounds half baked to me. “ I followed it by a criticism of the implied 'strategy' not the principal.

Firstly I was a member of the original Australia Party in the late 60's.
One of their key platforms then was Zero Population Growth (ZPG) , there were movies etc.
NB I am well aware of the issue and I agree that there is a WORLD WIDE problem of catastrophic proportions coming. I haven't changed that much over the time just a little older with a wider perspective/understanding.

The issue was unsaleable to the masses then and still is. This is largely so because the public is emotional/irrational on the issue. The tabloids/TV incl.(primary sources of info.) are reactionary because they're prisoners of the 'more profit ethic'. The consequences are reinforcement of our base emotions. (Objectivity is harder to control and not profitable )

Fact. There is sufficient food produced today to more than adequately feed everyone.
Wastage, transportation, excessive consumption by the west and EXCESSIVE profits aside.

Given the problem of population is a WORLD issue not just Aus.
Focusing on migration is a bit like taking an analgesic for a brain tumour. We're simply avoiding the issue by scapegoating others...those that are different to us.

Stopping migration dead ( incl NZ) won't change anything, the world will still bring us down.
If we can't stop OVER fishing, pollution, Climate Change or our system of economics what hope ZPG without a clear SET of strategies.

I choose to address the deeper 'root cause' and say that it is US/We that need to change too excluding that, the futility of 'deck chairs....' come to mind.

Simply raising the same issue under different guises only entrenches prejudices resentments not solutions. That does not imply we therefore do nothing.
Surly with the combined brain power on OLO we can get beyond the political prejudices etc. and think up alternative ideas/solutions

examinator (what a great pen name!)

Logically: if world population is to come down, all countries in the world need first to stabilise their populations (i.e. stop the car), then select reverse gear and slowly start to reduce population (gradually is best, so as to make the landing as soft as possible).

This means ALL nations (not some galloping ahead while others reduce), Australia included. To show leadership on this issue, Australia should start now to stabilise. As our birth rate is still below replacement level - around 1.9 children per woman - it would seem churlish to harange Australian women about having smaller families (though reasonable to abolish all incentives like baby bonus, childcare allowances, maternity leave after the 2nd child - perhaps on a means test basis) ...

This leaves immigration, which is currently absurdly high because Australia is sucking in skills from the rest of the world instead of actually training and educating its own people.

Australia now has population growth running at seven times the average for industrialised nations - twice as high as the nearest 'competitor' (Canada).

In short Australia should cut its skilled immigration to almost nothing, increase its refugee intake by a factor of 2 or 3 (it's only 13,500 at the moment) and massively increase its foreign aid aimed at helping developing countries in family planning, education of women etc.

ZPG would be a good first step. They were right in the 70s when you came up against the idea, and they're still right today. Australia cannot help developing countries (e.g. New Guinea, East Timor) to bring their population growth under control while at the same time having one of the world's highest rates itself.