Australia's population growth is soaring at an unprecedented rate.

This is just wonderful according to our 'illustrious' leaders. Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd are happy to facilitate this growth for ever, apparently.

There's nothing new about that. But what is new is that the Greens and green NGOs are actually having something significant to say about it!

The Australian Conservation Foundation, which has been virtually silent on population growth and genuine sustainability has loudly objected.

And even Bob Brown, another population silent type, has weighed in.

At last, some of the organisations that should have been objecting long an loud for the last twenty years or more are waking up to the utter absurdity of very high pop growth. Or perhaps they've finally located their balls and seen the need to speak out against the rapid-continuous-expansionism / gross-and-utter-antisustainabiliy paradigm.

I now hope that this incredibly stupid rapid growth path that the Ruddites have set this county on will be effectively countered by a strong and united sustainability force, to the point that our current PM and his terribly irresponsible cronies will be booted out of office at the next election, to be replaced by an enlightened opposition that has embraced sustainability!!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26110375-421,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,26092455-1702,00.html

Ludwig

Plagiarize much?

<< Fascinating. In the last week the media's been full of reports about Australia's burgeoning population and the exponential rate at which it's increasing. The Rudd government has outlined its plans to encourage this trend, which will result in an Australian population of 35M by 2050. Australia's population has increased by 439,000 in the year to March, of which 300,000 were due to immigration.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26110375-421,00.html

Various conservation groups and the Greens have expressed dismay at this trend, and have called upon the government to reduce immigration and to promote population sustainability.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,26092455-1702,00.html

If one was "passionate" about promoting debate about a sustainable population at OLO, there is plenty of fodder in these reports to stimulate an intelligent discussion about the pros and cons of increasing Australia's population. However, what does Ludwig do when presented with a prime opportunity to reinvigorate his favourite topic on these pages? >>

Posted by CJ Morgan yesterday

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3080&page=0#72633

What does Ludwig do? Not have an original thought, apparently.

WTF?

Fractelle – I don’t give a rat’s where Ludwig gets his info from and neither should you.

This sad Labor government has totally lost the plot on population growth.

We cannot continue to use the “built it and they will come” approach to housing and population.

We in Australia still have a chance but only if we replace those who choice to emigrate.

In the 1950s the notion of “populate or perish” seemed like a good idea.

Rudd’s 1950s population mentality will be a disaster for this country.

What are these people going to eat – dust?

Ah, but Kevi wants to win the next election and for that he needs
a healthy economy. Building new houses and trading them with one
another, is a major industry in the Eastern States, employing well
over a million. Then they all need services and public servants
to administer them, more employment.

No wonder Kevi pushes for population growth.

Never mind, Conroy has just majorly upset 1.4 million Telstra
shareholders, the majority who are furious that he is trying to
expropriate their hard earned Dollars and encourage yet more
Indian call centre fly by nighters, pretending to be telcos.

I think he majorly underestimates the fire in peoples belly over
that one, politically that will have ramifications he at presently
ignores.

So Labor might yet land up turfed out on their arse. It happened
in WA, when Carpenter became overconfident and arrogant, as our
present Feds are doing now.

Nice to see that Ludwig's taken note of my post from this morning on his hate thread and belatedly posted something about the big issue with respect to immigration. Some acknowledgement would have been courteous, but it seems he's been spending so much time intellectually with the haters that he's adopted both their manners and their mendacity.

Given that it's only the Greens and conservation groups that have spoken out against the latest immigration idiocy from the Rudd government, I wonder if Ludwig's going to continue to champion the Coalition as being most likely to reverse this unsustainable trend?

Barry Jones remember him Ludwig?
He headed an inquiry many years ago into Australia's future growth, population growth.
Remember Peter Costello?
One for mum.
One for dad.
And one for Australia.
Not so very long ago.
Barry Jones committee came up with a target that we should aim for a population of 17 to 22 million.
That was a recommendation for our sustainable and holding population, we have gone past that number.
BOTH party's have played a roll in us getting to this number.
So along with your fellow ranters here why blame Rudd?
What for, two years of migration, that is how long he has been in power.
Ludwig and company words flow with ease, ideas right or wrong flow from your key board.
But is there any thought or understanding behind them?
I offer as evidence the anti Rudd forces are a far bigger dust storm than red dawn and lack direction understanding and answers.

Another problem is the type of imigents we are bringing in to our country.

The news lately is dominated by ethnics and muslims either planning a terrerist attack, performing one, or being charged with one.

Thank god they have not yet been succesfull, but that's only a matter of time.

In my view, anyone convicted of terrerisum should be deported, along with their entire family. After all, it is they who place the well being of their families at risk. Treat them like drug dealers and sell their assetts, we could well use the money.

Not only do they bring their ways of life into our country, but they also try to stop us from living our lives the way we have for centuries. All because successive governments have become 'soft cocks' when it comes to 'political correctness'.

To my knowledge our entire nation has to contend with water restrictions. Our emergency services are on overload and our health system is past breaking point and has been for years, yet, they encourage more.

I say stop imigration immediately, at least until we fix our failing systems. Then, and only then, look at allowing imigrents who will respect our country for what it is.

<< Ludwig and company words flow with ease, ideas right or wrong flow from your key board. >>

Are you sure about that Belly?

Clearly Ludwig needs all the help he can get, as his words tend to 'flow' from others.

For those familiar with the tactics of Stevenlmeyer, I wonder at the agenda for this thread.

Simply to bash a Labor Government?

As others have pointed out the immigration policy is similar enough to the Howard Government's as to be almost indistinguishable. Baby Bonus? A Howard initiative.

Or will Ludwig turn to his favourite topic; bash the boat people.

Ludwig has, yet, to discuss the issues of sustainable population at any level beyond the superficial.

The Left and the Right are all for high immigration and for different reasons. Cross out reasons because that makes it sound like they have facts on their side. It is about ideology and votes in some marginal seats, not facts.

It is pleasing that Bob Brown has changed his stance, as I recall he was once all for populate or perish, imagining as others do that Australia is a great big open country with plenty of vacant land to squat. There is a lot of land but mainly desert and fragile marginal country.

However it is unfair to Australian women to suggest they should not have children when both sides of government have been responsible for continually higher immigration levels. Through record immigration, our population growth exceeds that of Asian countries, contributing to lack of supply of housing and high property prices, unsustainable growth of cities, much higher taxes in an attempt to play catch-up with needed infrastructure and lack of water.

I do not believe that Labor or the Libs have the guts to stand up to the lobbying of the pro-immigration lobby. The Greens? I would like to be convinced that Bob Brown's turn-around has more to do with concern about sustainability and quality of life rather than picking up a few more Senate seats. It is good to see some criticism of the government's immigration policies though.

Sheesh, what is your problem Fractelle?

Haven't we always got along well?

You've previously expressed agreement with me over the subject at hand. It seems as though you are losing your independence becoming a nasty little CJ clone, hellbent on finding something to pick at!

Pffffff! ( :>|

.
"Barry Jones remember him Ludwig?"

Sure do Belly. The Inquiriy into Australia's Population Carrying Capacity that he headed in 1994 was a thorough examination of the best population scenario for this country's future.

It came up with the right answers - stabilisaton at around 23 million, for reasons pertaining to environmetal health, quality of life and the maintenance of these values at a respectable level.

Of course it was shelved...and successive governments went on their merry way in exactly the opposite direction.

"So along with your fellow ranters here why blame Rudd?"

"ranters"? BELLY, now you've always been one of my most admired posters on this forum. What gives?

Successive governments are culpable, but obviously I blame Rudd the most because he's now in charge, and he's bloody well considerably boosted our population growth rate at a time when the importance of heading towards a stable population is greater than ever before.

So Belly, how do you counter that? Surely you are not going to defend Rudd over this?

Now I have had a chance to watch Rudd for a while, he seems like a fairly pragmatic sort of bloke who seeks out the best advice he can find and follows it - for better or worse. In particular Rudd, unlike Howard, does not seem look at the world through strongly idealogical glasses that influence Howard's every decision.

So I'd say the Rudd is being given advice that Australia needs to grow its population from people he trusts. What is more, I'd say that advice with a set of very plausible facts and figures to back it up. It would have to be, otherwise Rudd would not accept it.

I'd really, really like to see that advice and the reasoning behind it, and I like to know who is giving it. My guess is it is being given by Treasury, and it is based on the difficulty of supporting an ageing population. If so there is a obvious counter argument, but no one is putting it.

as one of the 20 million...non telstra common share/shareholders defrauded..by the one point four who now hold telstra shares im as much sick of the bleating from those who stole telicom...as they now no doudt are about govt trying to steal it back

that being said..re the lie of poulation..eating all your food most of you never grew stuff all food...most of ya claim others lands..etc etc..the list is extensive...but no doudt the guilty hoarders of the peoples common assets have fears...

so much so eugenics runs your adjenda...yes..we believe you..the world is too crowded...i recomend you that believe the world is too crowded..take the flue vacine...pump this cure for over population into your kids...forgetting it has been..built/created..in record time..on gm principles..using gm-bacteria...not eggs

the same gm you lot invested into total control of the seeds and terminator principles..and soon eugenics...either the fast way via their drugs diseases and cures...or the slow way through your food/phones..and water...

we been hearing this creation is overcrowded..go look out in the country there is mostly unused farmlands throughout the world...look at all the global food baskets been shut down...recal the mountains of dumped butter...

this lie of overpoulation has its roots in our ancient pasts..for thousands of years you mindless fear filled freaks...have been sold that furfy..do the research...those with murder in their heart will let others do their sick.will..

it begins with you eugenics/nutters complaining with your spin and buzz words..fears and delusions..it ends with things like the spanish flue/smallpox and other deliberated murder..gas/guns/or ovens..masked as cure/war or accidental..or orded..then their compul-sorry..inoculations with known carcinogenes..and now gmo

In the opening post to this thread, 'Record population growth', made on Friday, 25 September 2009 at 10:35:05 AM, Ludwig posted two links. The identical links had been posted by CJMorgan on Friday, 25 September 2009 at 8:05:59 AM in a post to the 'Onya Julie' topic. Fractelle made the claim (accompanied by a link to CJMorgan's post) in the second post to this thread, posted on Friday, 25 September 2009 at 2:35:15 PM, that these links had been "Posted by CJ Morgan yesterday". Obviously a slight mistake as to timing, and one not seemingly material, but I am puzzled by her asking of Ludwig the question 'Plagiarize much?'.

What is it that Ludwig has plagiarized?

CJMorgan's concluding question in the excerpt quoted by Fractelle, "However, what does Ludwig do when presented with a prime opportunity to reinvigorate his favourite topic on these pages?" seems answered. Ludwig promptly opened a new discussion, as suggested, and gave it the title 'Record population growth' consistent with the generality of the topic outlined by CJMorgan. His posting of the same links as had been posted by CJMorgan served only to ensure that the same referenced information would form the basis of any wider discussion that might continue. How is that plagiarism?

What requirement for original thought is elicited by those two references? It doesn't seem, to my way of thinking, to require much originality of thought to notice a seeming conundrum: at a time when the average number of children being born to each Australian woman is 1.7, we are told that Australia's population through natural increase rose by around 139,000 persons in the last year. How so?

A little bit early in the thread to rhetorically claim Ludwig to apparently not have had an original thought, I would have thought. Perhaps he had simply not as yet 'contributed very much'.

Pity to can the thread so early. Good to see Cornflower has touched upon a so far neglected aspect of what seems might be a corollary of any population policy.

I think Forrest's question is pertinent. Plagiarism only exists when one grabs someone else's *original* ideas and attributes it to himself. In Ludwig's case, he does not have to acknowledge CJ merely for having earlier cited the same source. He properly should have if he'd built on CJ's argument, but Ludwig didn't do that.

It's the same in scientific papers. Anyone is free to cite any original work, idea or thought without having to cite every other citer of the same source. Unless, that is, the citer had added something original himself. And, as in the scientific literature, what you do say that is original will ultimately be evaluated on its merits as it should be.

Looking objectively, what's really going on is a fight for the political centre. It's one between a compassionate approach to asylum seekers versus a hard-headed approach to protecting Australia's interests and standard of living by keeping them out. As there are positives and negatives on both sides, it's understandable there will be clashes.

"It is pleasing that Bob Brown has changed his stance, as I recall he was once all for populate or perish..."

Cornflower, it is indeed very pleasing to hear Bob express some sort of population stabilisation commonsense. Years ago when I was in the Greens I discussed this with him (well..I tried to!). I was pretty disgusted that he seemed to be totally disinterested in anything to do with population, or sustainability.

I just hope his expression is genuine and not motivated by senate seats or whatever. I think it is. So may it develop into a full-on and much-stated policy position by the Greens.

As I mentioned in the opening post, the other interesting expression of concern is coming from the Australian Conservation Foundation. I think that this is as equally significant as they have just been totally woeful on the issue for at least a couple of decades, since the days of Geoff Moseley, who was good on this subject.

There has been one excellent voice for the last two decades on this subject - that of Sustainable Population Australia. But unfortunately their message doesn't make the major media very often.

I dearly hope that we are on the cusp of a major voice of protest about absurdly high population growth and the utterly unsustainable path that Rudd has us on. I think we are. I think the time is right.

Bring it on!

.
Thanks for your words of reason Forrest.

What a contradiction this Rudd Govt is.First of they want carbon tax which enables Govts and the corporates to screw us,then they want unrestrained pop growth putting more carbon into the atmosphere.
Would someone explain the logic here?

Cornflower Bob Brown is doing his bit to keep our population in check.
Ludwig do you know that is how I continue to think of you?
But mate let me say it is blindness to judge Rudd for our growth.
How could you and the anti Labor throng forget it was Howard who bought in that massive baby bonus.
Rechtub, mate, how unwise that post, how likely to bring the roof down on you.
Yes me too, but not like you, I do not want to swing this thread with racist comments, and never will believe all Muslim migrants are trouble waiting to happen.
We should not divert threads that way.
I thought t was about numbers, about sustainability, about future, and I think still both sides of politics equally are hell bent on populate to increase wealth and beggar the environment.
I will burr up every time at blind anti Labor rubbish, but be the first to get into them when I see wrong.
I think Rudd is doing ok in migration, see no reason to think he is inviting the boats to come, red necks apart he is well thought of here and over sea,s.

"But mate let me say it is blindness to judge Rudd for our growth.
How could you and the anti Labor throng forget it was Howard who bought in that massive baby bonus."

Belly, why is it blindness to judge Rudd for our greatly increased population growth rate off the end of the Howard era or for his pandering to the continuous expansion paradigm and absolute blind-eye attitude to the urgent need to develop a sustainable society? Could you please explain your reasoning. Thanks.

Keating brought the baby bonus in. Howard boosted it and Rudd boosted it further. You seem to be blaming Howard for it but exonerating Rudd for keeping it! That doesn't make any sense to me.

Incidentally, I'm not anti-Labor in particular, I'm anti the antisustainabiilityists! And currently that is Labor, Liberal and essentially the Greens as well, although I pray that Bob Brown might be trying to change that.

Just about the only politician out there who seems to have any real sustainability nous is the Federal Labor member for Wills; Kelvin Thompson.

.
Yes Arjay, isn't the contradiction utterly extreme! Rudd realises that high population growth will greatly dilute our ability to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So what's he done? Whittled down the emissions reduction goal to a mere 5% reduction, rather than make any attempt to reduce the population growth rate!

Jeez, what sort of an antiChrist-type of leader do we have?

I feel no need to explain myself Ludwig.
Facts speak for them selves.
We have so many threads open now and in the recent past that talk of migration.
Population, and truly should be about fear.
So very many threads should be about the real reason we talk constantly about this subject.
Let us drop the lie, a lot of Australians fear, yes fear a culture within a culture.
Yes we fear also for our environment, but even I fear that culture that is separate from mine so demanding that mine changes.
Not The slow changes that we have been given as gift by migration.
But a world wide demand from some that we adopt or let another culture control our way of life.
I understand migrants, refugees are humans.
Wanted an end to child detention, want still control over people smugglers , an end to it.
But while I understand your issue with our populations number see it has let you blindly see only your view.
If I sound racist in my concerns about many Muslim migrants then face some truths, many do, from all sides of politics.
All over the world.
Are we talking growth or content here be honest do we fear growth or content more.

Yes Belly, I am sorry about that, I had a ‘Pauline moment’.

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed if we are even to sustain the population we have, let a lone, rapidly increase it.

There is ‘job creation’ through ‘value adding’ rather than just ‘raw exports’.

While Krudds idea of simply handing out cash, for the masses to splash around may well have boosted our economy last Xmas and post Xmas, what about this Xmas?

Or what about the fact that a little more than half of the population actually contributes, in a positive way, to the national purse and, that’s while we still have a manufacturing industry here. What happens if and when our manufacturing does go ‘off shore’, then what?

We are on a down hill spiral yet we continue to openly welcome people who not only disrespect our way of life, but insist on bringing their cultures into our lives all because we have ‘limp dick’ leaders.

Meanwhile, our own children continue to become homeless. Our hospitals etch closer every day to ‘third world standards’ and we have our leaders playing Russian roulette with our jobs market.

We must be the laughing stock of the world.

I say, Stop immigration, cancel the baby bonus and overhaul our welfare system so it is the ‘safety net’ it was meant to be rather than the ‘way of life’ it has become for many.

On that note I see we are re-visiting the ‘no school, no welfare’ approach.

Good luck with the ‘soft cocks’ we have in power

I am sure that both major parties are like mice on a wheel as far as immigration policy and targets are concerned and it is only the minor parties like the Greens who can cry 'enough' without suffering unduly at the polls. The ethnic groups are now much larger and better organised than in years before, thanks in part to government grants to encourage such representation.

On this issue, I am largely in agreement with rehctub; although I don't understand the line:
"On that note I see we are re-visiting the ‘no school, no welfare’ approach."
Could you please expand? Cheers...

I have long supported the idea that Australia's population should be limited for ecological reasons, and the figure that Barry Jones' committee came up with seems to me to be a reasonable approximation of the high end of estimates of the human 'carrying capacity' of the Australian continent. As a member of the Greens I have also been disappointed that the party has been unwilling or unable to arrive at a definitive population policy, although I understand the humanitarian concerns that drive resistance to enshrining absolute numbers in policy.

I'm therefore pleased that Bob Brown has finally made a strong statement about the unsustainability of increasing Australia's population to the levels envisaged by the Rudd government (and no doubt the Coalition if they were in power), and also that a leading environmental organisation like the ACF has similarly condemned such proposals. This is, of course, why I posted the links that Ludwig shamelesly lifted without acknowledgement.

Unfortunately, debates about population sustainability in Australia are often thinly disguised venues for the expression of xenophobic or racist sentiments, or simple misanthropic selfishness. While I'm pleased that Ludwig has belatedly started this discussion, I'm afraid that it's been poisoned from the start by his execrable strategy of preceding it with a blatant 'dog-whistling' appeal to the haters on his boat-people bashing thread.

I think that's what Belly was trying to say. At any rate, it'd be really great if we could have a discussion about population sustainability in Australia that wasn't designed to appeal to the lowest common denominators of debate about these issues in Australian society.

Belly,
Come on mate, both major parties are high immigration, but Rudd took the lead by greatly upping the intake. Both parties support the baby bonus and have an agreement NOT to debate immigration matters. The Greens stay quiet because they want Labor preferences to get their Senate seats. They are total hypocrits in this regard.

Incidently, it was the Libs who brought about the student and 457 workers fiasco, which resulted in an extra 54000 being granted permanent residency last year, which is not accounted for anywhere. The present government has not reversed that.

While ever big busness continues to pay large donations to the major parties the situation will continue.

We will continue to debate the issue because the polys wont. I want one party or the other to break the agreement about not to debate.

"Population soaring"?

1.8 children per couple (per woman)- to me that's self-genocide! That's the same as China with it's "one child policy".

That's the Australian population halving each generation, propped up only by immigration.

Yet in the poor coutries, fertility is as high as 8 per woman! That's almost trippling the population each generation! Imagine that... In Nigeria, North Africa, the Muslim world, they can supply three times more hosopitals, more schools and roads, and somehow three times more farmland every 25 years! Funny how we can't afford to fund our schools, hospitals and roads despite being a 'wealthy' nation.

Have a look at Wikipedia.... What is this a map of?
To me this looks like a map of World Poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg

But it is fertility...

Across the world, and within wealthy nations, the porrest are producing the children.... and the middle class is suiciding at an unprecedented rate!

And between nations, the poor nations are creating further poverty by unsustainable population growth.

Across Africa, the middle east, Sth america and asia, there are people scratching an existance from the most un-sustainable land... and as a result, deforestation, habitat destruction, extinction and famine are following. And then comes civil war, when starving people kill their neighbours because they need their farm land, because their legions of kids are starving.

Gia, The Earth Mother, needs us to look after the world... she needs us to help these people manage their populations... educating and providing free implants (the same as the "contraceptive pill", but needed only every 5 years, instead of daily) can save countless lives and many species.

Have a look at Thailand! They now manage their population to be no-growth, no-decline. As a result, over the next 50 years Thailand will also become a wealthy nation.

Why is China now an economic powerhouse (instead of a basket case)? Because the one-child policy 20 years ago. That was forced and co-ercive and terrible, but necessary. Thailand shows it can be free, optional, libertarian,sustainable, good, non-sexist, etc etc.

Save the planet! Provide population managementand education

Officially at lunchtime today Aussie hits 22 million people.

OI! OI! OI!

[giggle] [cough]

KHUUUUURRRR KHU Khu khu khu khou kough cough cough splutter dribble snort....

Oh my head feels like its gunna burst.

):>(

Yes and with less than 6 million of us paying the bills, how are we ever going to provide decent hospitals, a reliable police service or provide quality education for all?

Not a hope in hell! But hey, just keep bringing them in until we come to a grinding hult.

From today's Courier Mail:

'Now 22 million reasons to fret.'

Australia became a nation of 22 million people yesterday but conservationists say it is a worry, not something to brag about.

Sustainable Population Australia southeast Queensland branch president Simon Baltais said Australia was on course to have a population of 100 million by the end of the century, with 14 million people living in southeast Queensland.

"There is not a single environmental problem that benefits from increased population", he said.

"To the contrary, population growth makes all environmental problems and many social ones much worse.

How does population growth benefit our water shortages, congested roads, loss of bushland, food and home security and failing health systems?"

He said increases in greenhouse gas emissions almost directly paralleled population growth.
_______________

This little article appears on page 29!!

It is stuff of enormous importance....and yet it barely rates a mention |:>(

Ludwig, although our population is growing, at a rate of 1.8 children per female I saw, I feel our real threat is not from within, but from our close neighbours, as they have a population growth rate of up to 8-1.

Now I think little old Australia will become very very tempting for some nation that has 'out grown' their country and is envious for our resourses.

And we think we have it tough now. Just wait till this happens, and I have little doubt it will.

Human rights, or equal opportunities is the last thing they care about.