There are many insightful comments in this discussion but I do recommend that those who haven’t read Overloading Australia do so. It answers most of the questions raised here.

But one point that hasn’t been raised is what voters want. No pollster has asked us if want population growth (or at least not since an Irving Saulwick poll did so indirectly in 1977 and found that 50% of voters would “not be concerned if growth slows down”).

But we do know that most voters do not support the current extraordinarily high rates of immigration: in the post-election survey held just after the 2007 election 46% of voters wanted immigration to be reduced, 38% wanted it to remain about the same and only 15% wanted it to increase.

Despite this, and also despite the fact that they had made no mention of immigration in the election campaign, the Rudd Government almost immediately increased the immigration program (which was already very large).

In 2008 we added 253,400 extra people through net overseas migration (and 152,700 through natural increase). Both figures are a record. We have never added so many new people in one year before.

There is a growth lobby making money out of population growth but it is not clear that such growth is in the best interests of either Australia or the rest of the world.

Examinator has a couple of points that need clearing up .
It is very debatable that we are producing plenty of food for all and it is just efficiency and distribution costs which are the problem . With rapid world [and local]population expansion together with degradation of arable land and scarcity of water and spiralling energy costs our food production must plummet .
The claim that overpopulation is a world problem and not just OUR problem does not mean that we lie back and do nothing .
The "root cause"is principally overpopulation which has been addressed for years to a largely deaf audience .
Any other PRACTICAL suggestions of how to address the problem would be valuable .

Anyone on here willing to give Pauline Hanson the slightest nod of recognition?
Why does it take an ordinary person to say it as it is?
Pick holes in these questions, then ask yourself if you are any closer to a solution!

ps re overpopulation. Simple. Move out of your state capital of fear, and live where you can grow and catch your own food and water. You don't bring the mountain to mohhammed.

Yes Pauline would be a better bet than either major party or the Christian fundamentalists.

She did not get the votes she did by not addressing some vary serious issues of importance to Australians.

While I do not condone the waste of any resource the message is clear that by solving the symptom we are not addressing the problem.
But please do not suggest a water trading credit scheme.

Thermoman et al
The pen name was 'given' to me for my on going Letters to the Editor in which I examined the local council actions and kept asking uncomfortable questions of them.

the problem is not defining the problem it's bleeding obvious (note the wording)
'Too many people to sustain extravagant life styles' of a minority of the world population.

The average African father when told that only one/two of his six children will survive to mature age answered that he therefore needed more children. (to help support him in his old age) so I pose the question *'what is the issue too many people or not enough wealth to go around?*

If you consider 20% or there abouts consumes between 50/65% of the worlds resources one can wonder.

Add to this The UN agencies have calculated that there is enough food produced to feed the world now. The issue is can the bottom 40% afford to make it profitable for the major producers? The answer is clearly no. Millions of Tonnes of food is wasted daily to prop up prices, not worth harvesting. Then the supreme/premier quality is sold to super markets etc. the rest?

The most abstract commodity is to blame i.e. 'Enough Profit' (what ever that is) and everyone in the chain has to get their EP .

Notwithstanding this there are too many people ...somebody has to cut their population back but whose....yours if you have more than 1.9. Mind you at times beheading (.1)one of my sons at times appears to have it's upside...as for that bogan next door ( he wouldn't be missed...(apologies to G&S 'Mikado'). :-).

Seriously though we DO have too many people in the world. We need more people to pay for the baby boomer bubble. The US is in big do do over this one.
Can you imagine the scream that would go up if businesses exec, stars, rock singers/groups , arms manufacturers were deemed surplus to requirements.....

All those countless Quadrillions of $ to spend no need for 'sons' superannuation. Unrealistic probably but......