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?