Ludwig,
I couldn’t disagree with you more.

Sustainability could probably fairly defined as the ability to support a certain number of people, at a certain living standard, long term,-without (significant) degradation of the environment.

The fly in the ointment is ‘the ‘living standard’ you or I may consider essential would be seen by many in the third world as extravagant

If Australia unilaterally cuts it population, all it will succeed in doing is providing living space for others who are not so fussy & whose birth control measures were not so prudent.

When faced with major diasters which displace millions of people
( as the climate change Jeremiahs predict)and a relativley sparsley populated continent , what govt would have the backbone to seal our borders?
When faced with available cheap labour- which will work for half the wage -and easy access under economic liberalism/rationalism - what employer would forgo the windfall?

And as for setting an “example“:
The population growth of Japan , Italy & the Scandinavia countries has been at zero to declining & that of the rest western Europe hasn’t been far behind, for a decade or more -but it hasn’t done one iota to halt the surging population growth of the Arab world & much of Africa.-so much for the power of role models.

Leigh,
Education should be universal and free. What’s important is the curriculum, and criteria for advancement. Elitism is to be avoided if decency is to prevail. Intelligence is not dependent on formal education at any level, however, a good education will assist individuals to develop natural intelligence – along with life experiences.
Voting for political Parties does not guarantee the provision of quality education or government. Informed Americans agree they have probably the worst education system in the so-called developed world – despite having the best universities. A broad education does not necessarily lead to democracy. It’s time to investigate claims that our form of ‘democracy’ is any better than the rule of a benign despot who listens to expert advice. Most of the present world’s woes stem from unfettered development instigated by modern dictatorial ‘democracy’, in which the ‘will of the people’ is restricted to one vote every few years, that will probably not count. When a party that receives 2.5% of the votes gets a senate seat, while another with 15% doesn’t, then things are desperately wrong.
North Africa is not the uncultivated wilderness your comment suggests, despite the predatory religion. Western ‘democracies’ have not provided their citizens with anything intrinsically valuable – they can’t, because politicians have to tout for re-election every few years. We may live longer, but we are not happier, and it is the unfettered growth promoted by our ‘democracies’ that is causing the imminent demise of life on earth. My claims about the print media and TV are correct. You are correct that we don’t need to rely on traditional media for information, but unfortunately most people do.
We should be voting for a local representative in a government of independents, who arrive at decisions by consensus and who are committed to the separation of church, judiciary and state. I live in Australia because I’m Australian. New Zealand and Western Europe are more democratic but too cold. No place is perfect – although Australia was well on the way during the 70’s and early 80’s. Recent governments have destroyed that hope.

Horus, let me start with really basic questions, and maybe can we develop a good debate… because I am interested in an apparently heart-felt opinion that Australia can’t address sustainability issues in isolation.

Do you think Australia should not bother to even try to deal with sustainability issues in this country, given the state of the world and the rapid momentum away from sustainability?

Do you think Australia should open its borders and let population find its own equilibrium?

Do you think Australia should not bother trying to set a good example for other countries?

Ludwig,
Should bother about sustainability? -Yes, but on our own terms.
We need to adopt the approach whereby we don’t provide foreign aid except to those who practice sustainable industrial practices & maintain sustainable population levels. We need to ensure that the Tim Costello’s & Bonos who shape public opinion advocate family planning in the third world as vigorously as they do aid issues

Should Aust its borders to find a pop equilibrium?-No - our population growth should come from within - we should not accept economic refuges & employers should be required to train locals rather than import employees ( & their inevitable entourage of dependents & associates).

Should we bother to set a good example? Rather than set an example, its likely to be ultimately self sacrificial .If the example of virtually all of Western Europe (with heavy weights like Italy, Spain ,France Germany ) & European Russia, & Japan all with negative or zero population growth, have not had the affect of setting an example the Arabs & Africans want to emulate .
(Rather all it has done has been to act as a magnet to thousands of illegal immigrants who eventually by hook or by crook gain resident & then provide social problems)
How on earth would Australia’s EXAMPLE prove otherwise?

I note we are currently being conditioned to accept a new wave(s)of “economic refuges’ under the pretext of atonement for being a major contributor of global warming .Thus we have societies throughout the world on marginal environmental /economic bases-that were marginal before they chose to live/expand in certain localities e-who when faced with an adverse turn, cry wolf, & expect the rest of the world to repeatedly bail them out, & they & the west, are being conditioned to believe we are responsible for their plight.

Horus I agree with most of your points;

sustainability practiced on our terms,

our international aid geared towards those countries who are helping themselves by way of sustainable industrial practices and population levels and

our aid being provided first and foremost for family planning and population stabilization.

As far as setting an example goes, whatever we do sets an example. If we set a bad example as we are doing by allowing continuous rapid population growth, escalating environmental problems and shortages of basic resources, we can hardly complain too loudly about other countrys’ actions or lack of actions.

Of course we should be setting the best example that we can, and if other countries then fail to heed it, well that’s their loss. But setting an example should just be one positive spinoff to achieving genuine sustainability, it certainly shouldn’t be the main goal.

Yes Australia will look very inviting if we set the right example and that could well lead to increased illegal immigration issues. But we CAN deal with that, as was demonstrated by the Federal government’s actions that ensued from the Tampa incident in August 2001…. which slowed an impending hugely escalated rate of offshore asylum seekers down to a trickle.

I don’t think we have too much disagreement afterall.

Leigh said: "I don't know why Ludwig wants Rudd (if elected) to carry on with Beazley's mumblings. Beazley often said, proudly, that he was a big immigrationist!"

I also recall shuddering at hearing Beazley proclaim he was "a big immigration man!" If Ludwig could provide a link demonstrating this change of heart, I'd be very grateful. Unfortunately, Beazley's public musings are probably not official ALP policy as his prolix proclamations rarely translated into reality.

Interestingly, the ALP National Constitution claims: "Labor recognises the need to plan for a sustainable population and in government will develop a formal national population policy." It also promises that "Labor will establish, as a matter of priority, a new Office of Population to advise on a range of desirable population options, and ways of achieving them." Yet, it does not unequivocally promise to REDUCE immigration to sustainable levels - meaning a zero net immigration policy. I wonder how long it would take such an "Office of Population" to come to the obvious conclusion that Australia is already overpopulated based on its limited carrying capacity.