Ditch, I’m sure that if you put up your views on population or ask a few questions, then you’ll get responses and the topic will proceed as you want it to….in amongst posts that you are not interested in.

However, I don’t think that there is much point in discussing the merits of the population growth problem. It is all pretty obvious really, as per Kelvin Thomson’s speech. It has also been done to death on this forum.

What is important is getting the necessary changes to take place. And one big way of pursuing that is to support Thomson in his expression of the issues and his push for a high-profile debate.

Mind you, we’ve had all that before as well – back in 1994 with the Inquiry into Australia’s Population Carrying Capacity. But I guess after fifteen years it needs to be rehashed.

I’m just waiting for Thomson to be muzzled. I think that that is the next obvious step – for Rudd to just tell him to can it. We won’t hear about it of course. We’ll just notice silence from Thomson after a couple months. Let’s see if I’m right.

Oh I'm interested in the other topics that were raised but of the 4 or 5 posts that preceded mine, none were directly concerned with the topic. I cannot see why it was titled as it was if the talk was off on a tangent on different topics.

I've mixed feelings on the immigration policy and the pressures it has put on resources, social harmony and employment. I don't claim expertise in the dynamics of population and economic growth beyond the fact that if the economy grows then a larger labour force is needed and if the present population is insufficient then you need more people. So long as there is a demand for the products produced then the net result is usually positive. That's simple enough for most to understand.

The opinions Thompson expresses regarding global population increases and the effect on the planet are so obvious it's legitimate to call them a no brainer. Of course when there are limited resources in decreasing availability and an increasing demand, something has got to give. It's the biggest problem facing the planet. Anyone got a solution?

“Rudd worse than Howard?”

Absolutely Fractelle.

He considerably boosted immigration as soon as he got into power. He didn’t mention this in the election campaign. He had no mandate to do it.

He increased the baby bonus. So he is every bit as bad as Costello.

But worst of all, in 2007 it was patently obvious that a major change in political philosophy was needed. Rudd saw part of it, in the need to address climate change, but has completely missed the imperative to steer this country towards a sustainable future, which quite frankly is a whole lot more important.

Despite some progress on climate change / peak oil / alternative energy sources, Rudd’s increased population growth will serve to undermine any gains made in reducing emissions. He’s admitted this, but has no intention of doing anything about it. He is happy for national carbon emissions to be a whole lot higher than they would be if we reduced population growth.

He's in bed with big business just as fully as any national government has ever been. This means that Labor is going to do what the real estate industry and other powerful business interests want - keep up the very high rate of expansionism, regardless of the consequences.

Kelvin Thomson has struck right at the heart of Ruddism. He’s got the potential to really stir the pot, if he can gain the support of a large section of the community, which seems very likely. So again, I’m just waiting for him to be silenced by his unscrupulous master.

Ludwig

This may surprise you, but I think almost every one of your criticisms of Rudd are valid.

To really move into a national philosophy of sustainable living we need to consider all factors from population to pollution, ecosystems to economics, from renewable to redundant technology.

However, there was not a single aspect of the previous Liberal-led federal government that indicated to me, we would be better off under Howard. There we will have to agree to disagree.

I remain hopeful that there is sufficient understanding of the big picture within the Labor party for us to have a chance - Kelvin Thompson being but one. It won't be soon enough and we will lose a lot before we become fully self sustainable - both here and world wide.

However, we also have a change of regime in one of the world's biggest economies - the USA. Now if you are going to say that Obama is going to be a worse president than George W, I would like to politely request, that you have a big rethink.

Cheers

Full marks to Kelvin Thompson on his speech - having now read it (thanks Ludwig) I think he's spot on. However, I very much doubt that it will gain much traction with either the Government or Opposition. As Ludwig says, they're both in bed with big business, and really have no option but to support continued growth, which requires an ever increasing population according to their paradigm.

However, I disagree that Rudd is worse than Howard overall. We've gone from a heartless, warmongering growthist government to one that's slightly more humane, less inclined to toady to its American masters and is at least making baby steps towards sustainability.

Has immigration actually increased under Rudd? While Ludwig says so, I haven't seen any figures that bear that out. As I've said before, the baby bonus and so-called 'skilled' migration should be scrapped forthwith, along with childcare subsidies.

However, neither the Government nor Opposition is likely to do anything of the sort, because it would be electoral suicide.

No one has yet been able to explain why with more people than ever before in our nation we have more wealth, abundant food, a higher standard of living and yet we think it intellectual to sprout the over population mantra. I can understand the earth worshipers who somehow think we can return to the garden of Eden sprouting this crap but those who claim to have brains certainly don't think this one through. How about we start killing off a few animals if we are so short of resources.